Judgement for Claim (in defalult) - PCM & Gladstones

Thanks @Jonersh / Coupon-mad.

I Discovered the judgement for claimant (in default) on returning to UK late Dec. Sent set aside 5/1/2017.

Noted re: the last known address. I'd like to argue that a letter sent to the owner of the property to advise that a vehicle connected to the address was potentially subject to increasingly onerous penalties/proceedings would have been a reasonable and expected action considering they had received no response from me.
This would have:
a) avoided the monetary/time cost to claimant, and unnecessary escalation to the court in the first instance (ref: Justice Minister The Rt Hon Sir Oliver Heald QC MP announcement on the 23rd December 2016)
b)i) allowed the resident of the property to alert me lawfully (ie without opening mail addressed to another individual)
ii) would have resulted in a response from me that advised the claimants solicitors that compliant POC's had not been received despite a request for the same.
iii) provided an opportunity to advise claimants solicitors that in the instance compliant POC's had initially been sent and I was the driver at the time (which I do not recall), that I had the explicit consent from the company for whom I then worked, to load, unload and park at the site of the alleged contravention. ( I will be obtaining a signed letter from one of the co-founders of the still resident company supporting this).

In addition would you advise that I go to the site to take pictures of the signs and the area where loading and unloading takes place ( interestingly there are no double yellow lines here, as there are at most other locations around the site) ?
I am working on percentages a little here as I do not recall being on the site and parked in an unauthorised location, but were I the driver at the time, this is the likeliest place for the car to have been despite having never received photos of any of the alleged contraventions.

I will be taking the above in addition to what was prepared in witness statement (copied below for ease of ref):

1.3. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against the Defendant without ensuring they held the a current and correct contact details. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry!!!8217;s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country. This is a topical issue: I note that the Justice Minister The Rt Hon Sir Oliver Heald QC MP announced on the 23rd December 2016 a consultation and information campaign to help protect consumers from debt claims. The consultation will look at ways to; !!!8220;better protect consumers who are sent mail to inaccurate addresses and verify addresses again before a claim is sent.!!!8221; He added:
"It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. In the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address."


1.4. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant!!!8217;s current address when bringing the claim.


1.5. I have also not received any previous documentation (Full, Proper & Compliant Particulars of claim) from the Claimant in this matter and I thus was never able to properly challenge the Claimant!!!8217;s claim. This is despite my best efforts as noted below.


1.6. Having discovered Default Judgement court papers contain no details of the alleged incident and I do not know what the Default Judgement relates to. I not confident that I know what vehicle this relates to.


1.7. I attempted to contact the Claimant via phone number on their website more recently (Dec 2017). I was not able to get through to a member of the Claimant!!!8217;s staff to discuss the matter as they have an automated phone system that does not allow you to talk to an advisor without inputting a numerical code. As I had never received any return communication from them I do not have such a code. There is no alternative means of contacting them provided. I am still without further detail having established no other correspondence had been received. I have immediately responded to the discovery of the Judgement against me and have given the Claimant adequate time to provide the requested information but they have not done this. This means as the Defendant, I still do not have adequate details of the incidents the Claimant alleges have taken place and had long ago reasonably concluded that the claimant ceased their claim. As such I left the country believing the matter was at an end due to no further correspondence after the initial requests for compliant particulars of Claims many months ago (May 2017)..


1.8. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim properly. I thus believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside.

2. Order dismissing the Claim


2.1. I have received no documentation regarding what vehicle this alleged contravention relates to, thus do not even know that I am in fact the Registered Keeper.

2.2. The Claimant, PCM have not proved that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which I am the Registered Keeper. Further to this, even then any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant would have needed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This includes the requirement to issue the Notice to Keeper within 14 days of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the Default Judgement, or indeed after, I submit the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.

2.3. If the Notice to Keeper was not issued within 14 days, then the Claimant is required to prove who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the alleged incident. I have no recollection of ever parking at the location of the alleged incident. The vehicle that I am the Registered Keeper of, can driven by other insured adult and is on occasion driven by other adults with their own comprehensive insurance. I submit that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence of the identity of the driver. I further submit that the Claimant does not include !!!8216;Protection of Freedoms Act 2012!!!8217; wording on the Parking Charge Notices they issue and therefore cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.


2.4. If the Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, and used those details to make a claim for a !!!8220;Parking Charge Notice!!!8217;!!!8217;, I thus dispute the claim in its entirety as I do not know the wording of the contract nor do I know the means by which the contract was alleged to come into force.

2.5. I further submit that the Claimant!!!8217;s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:

2.5.1. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is unlikely to be the landowner of the car park in question, and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able sue for any damages or trespass.

2.5.2. No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to PCM.
2.6. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of a vehicle, I will require copies of all paperwork, photographs relating to contraventions and pictures of all signs from the Claimant.

2.7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Also any interest added due to claimant failure to provide the right address of the defendant need to be cancelled.

2.8. The government have put in place a mechanism whereby liability can be transferred from driver to keeper, under the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, sch 4. The claimant has made the conscious decision not to avail themselves of this legislation and use a notice to keeper which fails to comply with 8.1, 8.2a, 8.2c, 8.2f, 8.8b, 9.2.a, 9.8b of the Act.

2.9 On the other hand it is believed that the Claimant may seek to rely on a rather
unique interpretation of the judgement in Elliott -v- Loake which is different from this case.

2.10 This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

2.11. On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.

Ok - will get on to that this weekend.

@Johnersh - any more advice insights having seen what I intend to take along?

Thanks in advance.