Found another CCJ on my credit score

Hi All

It was very strange what happened with me at the hearing so if some one could explain if the default order set aside or not and if I need to do something or not as I 'm totally confused

No one came from pcm then usher called me and took me to the Judge room.

I was opening my bag to get my papers then the judge told me there is no need for that. Then he told me I'm order you by that day you must provide Statement of Defence to the court and to the other party.

I told the Judge that I already did that with my set aside application 2 months ago and I have a postage proof for that and court letter support that and tried to show him that court letter but he said there is no Statement of defence in the file in the front of him. all of that just took a minute.

I went straight to court office and asked them why my Statement of defence was not in the file so they got the file from the judge and opened in the front of me and the Statement of Defence was there so the court manager asked me what I need then I said I want to go back for hearing but she came back to me and asked me to email the statement of Defence to court to pcm straight away and she will try to get the set aside order on the same day.

I went home and emailed the document to Gladstones and then the emailed it to the court with all postage proof then I did that 2 months ago and I got the below email and order:

''Dear Sir, Please see the attached order. Please send the documents of the Defence to the Claimant as soon as possible.
I will send a sealed copy of the order in post tomorrow.
The matter has now gone to the District judge for further directions. Yours faithfully''

https://www.keepandshare.com/doc16/22219/set-aside-court-order-pdf-74k?da=y

Of course I didn't discuss my costs.

Regards

Johnersh wrote: »

1. Check the defence. Make sure it is as good as it can be.

Thanks for reply and I understand that it's not legal advise.

Do I need or can I change the Statement of Defence already submitted? is that the meaning of Full word the Judge used?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Show us that defence!

The old Statement of Defence

Statement of Defence


IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No: xxxx

BETWEEN:

PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

MR. xxxx (Defendant)

I am Mr. xxxx and I am the Defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated xxxx requesting to:

1. All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.
2. The default judgment dated xxxx be set aside.
3. Claimant to pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee plus £20 for original Claim Form and Default Judgement order copies.
4. The original Claim to be dismissed / Struck out.
5. Claimant to pay Defendant’s costs.

Defendant sets his Defence points in sections as per the section index below:
1. Default Judgment: Describes how Claimant obtained Default Judgment order against Defendant by not properly serving the Claim Form to the Defendant’s last known / current address preventing Defendant to defend that Claim although Claimant been informed about that address and also was aware about that address from previous legal cases v Defendant years and months before starting that proceeding in question.

Also Describes how Defendant acting promptly once knew about the default Judgement against him on xxxx as the Bank closed his credit card account after reviewing Defendant’s credit file which badly affected by that unknown Default Judgment order. Defendant never knew about that order before as never refused credit before and never been contacted by Claimant for that.

2. Order dismissing / Struck out the claim: Describes the back ground of the case, how the Defendant has real prospect of success as he had authority / right for his action deriving from the terms of the Defendant Land Registry T& C with the landowner of the estate and Tenant contract. Previous Claimant cases v same Defendant were stuck out and Defendant awarded costs for Claimant’s unreasonable behave and non compliance with new protocol for debt claim, CPR, PD or Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom act 2012 as exactly done for that proceeding. Also describes how Claimant misleading everyone about his authority and not complying with his agreement with the Management Company xxxx.

3. Order to pay Defendant costs: Defendant asks for his costs for Claimant unreasonable behave by not serving the Claim Form to the last Defendant’s known current address and for non compliance with the new protocol for debt claim, CPR, PD or Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom act 2012 throughout that proceeding which made the case in high cost environment to the Defendant.
1. Default Judgment:

1.1 I understand that the Claimant obtained a default judgment against me on xxxx. However, the Claim Form dated xxxx and Default Judgment order were not served at my current address, therefore I was not aware of the County Court Judgment until xxxx when received a Bank letter dated xxxx stated that the Bank will close my credit card account after reviewing my credit file.

1.2 On xxxx I had to pay £14.99 to Credit score company to know what the changes in my credit file causing that, so I found there is a default Judgement against me mentioned only the Claim number.

1.3 On the same day I contacted the County Court Business Centre to get more details about the case and I knew the Claimant is Parking Control Management (UK) Limited and the Claim Form dated xxxx served to my old address xxxx. The County Court Business Centre emailed to me some of the Claim Form details.

1.4 On the same day I had to pay £20 to The County Court Business Centre to get a copy of the original Claim Form and Default Judgment order which I did not receive up to writing this statement.

1.5 I moved out from xxxx to xxxx on xxxx and Claimant been informed through:

a- Claimant’s debt recovery company DRP on xxxx as DRP was the last firm contacted before I moved out from the address mentioned in the Claim Form.

b- Claimant’s Solicitor, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, by letters dated xxxx, xxxx and xxxxx.

1.6 The Claimant also aware about my current address from previous legal cases before issued the Claim Form dated xxxx in question.

1.7 As I never received the Claim Form, therefore I was never able to defend that case. Previous defended cases between Claimant and Defendant were struck out and Defendant awarded costs for Claimant unreasonable behave and non compliance with new protocol for debt claim, CPR, PD or Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom act 2012.

1.8 I believe the claimant has behaved unreasonably by not ensuring they used my correct contact details. Adding that according to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. Claimant persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results in an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system.

1.9 I suggest the claimant did not make reasonable enquiries as to my current address before starting the proceeding specially that proceeding started more than two years after the alleged parking incident and considering Claimant had good reason to believe they did not hold my current contact details. Furthermore, considering they received no response from me to their correspondence this should have been a clear indication of the obsolescence of the address mentioned in the Claim Form.

1.10 The Claimant had and was able to obtain my correct and current address after (date of judgement) to make me aware of the money owed.


1.11 Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. Therefore, I believe that the default judgment against me was irregular and I respectfully request it is set aside.


2. Order dismissing / Strick out the claim:

2.1 It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark xxxx which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was a company hire car and insured to all the company employees who permitted to use it.

2.2 The Defendant has a land registry contract with the Landowner of xxxx Central Development (the land where the Claimant claims a parking charge (s) for breaching of the terms of parking). Also Defendant has a tenant contract and was authorised by the Leaseholder for his action. The terms of those contracts give the Defendant or who authorised by him granted right to use with or without vehicle the common parts and estate roads of the development along with other rights and benefits and does not restrict or charge parking in the development for the type / condition of the vehicle in question. A copy of the Land registry already been provided to the Court and to Claimant for previous legal cases and will be provided if that case continued to hearing together with witness evidence that prior permission had been given.

2.3 It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious and the intention of that Claim is to waste a victim, like the Defendant, time and efforts if the victim do not accept to give up his rights or did not pay the alleged unlawful charge(s). Claimant intention is to get a Regular / Default judgment against Defendant like what happened for that proceeding.

2.4 The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes and practice daily life activity are not something the Courts should be seen to support.

2.5 The Claimant has no right, base or authority to sue the Defendant in the land in question for parking charges or parking penalty and there is no base for his agreement with management company xxxx as that agreement breached Residents contract with Landowner. Also Claimant breached, over authorised and did not comply with the agreement between him and management company xxxx.

2.6 Residents of xxxx Development declined the scheme provided from the Claimant in residents meeting on xxxx and management company xxxx been informed of that refusal before starting any car park scheme in the land in question.

2.7 It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that can have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant declined all trials by the Claimant, years before Claimant issued that alleged parking charge(s), to enter into a contract allowing Claimant to charge the Defendant and Claimant and his solicitor Gladstones been informed several times by letters, emails and putting the decline letter on the car wind screen.

2.8 The Claimant has no reasonable ground for bringing that claim as he knew the entire above paragraphs since 2013 and from previous legal cases with the Defendant at the same land.

2.9 The Claimant issued the PCN(s) and took a photos of the car while loading, unloading, dropping off kids, passenger or shopping for less than three minutes.

2.10 The Claimant’s Solicitor Gladstones are known and been shamed in parliament bill debate on 02 February 2018 as a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.

2.11 The Defendant previous legal cases number xxxx and xxxx at xxxx county court with the same Claimant and his Solicitor Gladstones were struck out as the Claimant neither paid the court fees nor served his Witness Statement to the court or the Defendant and the Defendant awarded costs for Claimant unreasonable behave and non compliance with New Protocol for Debt Claim, CPR, PD or Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom Act 2012.

2.12 The Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time / costs in dealing with this matter and the Defendant will seek for his costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27(14) and Paragraph 16 of Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.

2.13 It is denied that any "parking charges / damages and indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the brief Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

2.14 The Claimant also breaches and failed to fulfil PD 7E as he chose to insert brief summary of the Particulars of Claim, while by doing that he must adhere with Paragraph 5.2 (2).

2.15 Claimant starting that proceeding while he knew he has no prospect of success. Also Claimant failed to comply or fulfil with pre action protocol, Civil Procedure Rule or Practice Direction for bringing this claim. Other similar court car park cases plus court cases in the same location are mentioned.

2.16 Claimant failed to comply or fulfil with the Schedule 4 Of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA 2012) Recovery Of Unpaid Parking Charge as Claimant never stated the period of the alleged parking which is mandatory by that Act. Also Claimant inflated the original charge by 2.37 times which that prohibited under that Act.

2.17 Claimant did not comply with the agreement between him and xxxx as he applied IPC scheme and its code of practice when issued the alleged parking charge in question while his agreement with xxxx required from him to apply BPA scheme and its code of practice. Also Claimant was not a member of the BPA Association when issued the alleged parking charge in question.

2.18 Claimant did not comply with his code of practice as Claimant issued the parking charge in less than 3minutes while his association code of practice required 10 minutes grace time before issuing any parking charge.

2.19 Other defence / issue points: Claimant signage cannot form any kind of contracts between him and Defendant as it is too high, too dark and unreadable.

2.20 The Defendant invites the court to strick out or dismiss that claim by exercising its inherent case management powers pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 3.4 (2).

2.21 The Claim Form contains only brief Particulars of Claim which breaches and failed to fulfil the pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 as it does not include a statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies and only referring to a Parking Charge(s) with no further description nor details.

2.22 That brief Particulars of Claim lacks specificity, incompetent, are embarrassing and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific or proper full defence. A parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, all of these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

2.23 There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.

3. Order to pay Defendant costs: Defendant asks for his costs pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27(14) and Paragraph 16 of Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, for Claimant unreasonable behave and non compliance with the new Protocol for Debt Claim, CPR, PD or Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom act 2012 throughout that proceeding by not serving the Claim Form to the last Defendant’s known address and make the case in high cost environment to the Defendant.

Court cases Defendant relies on it:
1. Claimant case number xxxx v same Defendant was struck out, heard at xxxx County Court on xxxx. Defendant awarded £xxxx for his costs as a result of Claimant’s unreasonable behave.

2. Claimant case number xxxx v same Defendan was struck out, heard at xxxx County Court on xxxx. Defendant awarded £xxxx for his costs as a result of Claimant’s non compliance with CPR and unreasonable behaves.

3. Claimant case number E9GF71N6 v Mr. AA Ahmed was dismissed, heard at Romford County Court on 02 November 2018.

4. Claimant case number E4GF4771 v Mr. Nilesh was dismissed, heard at Central London County Court on 27 July 2018 Defendant awarded £448.5 for his costs as a result of Claimant’s unreasonable behaves.

5. Claimant case no. E4GF4763 v Mr.E Igberaise was dismissed, heard at Romford County court on 13 July 2018.

6. Case number D2GF38GF v Mr Ian Bowmaker was struck out at Sunderland County Court on 26 February 2018.

7. Same Claimant pcm v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016]: residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company. The difference between Claimant signage in residential area and parking eye signage in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (retail park) explained by judge.

8. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E: on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading. It was established that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking, and this will therefore bring the penalty doctrine back in play. The charge will therefore likely be a penalty and unfair consumer charge unless it is found the charge is a pre-estimate of loss or there is commercial justification. The Supreme Court found that £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss in Beavis as there was no direct loss to the parking company.

9. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016]: it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

10. In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016]: it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

11. In Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011: it was found the managing agent could not reduce the amount of parking spaces available to residents.

12. UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016]: it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.

13. Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016]: it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.

Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Name: xxxx
Date: xxxxx
Address: xxxxx