CCJ and my Credit Score- All correspondence sent to address from 2013

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Because the other side will, and will paint it as case law for all private parking cases, and some Judges would (and do) still fall for that.


Yes, although I can't recall UKPC v Aziz

Yes, in a robust counter-claim for DPA misuse of data.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Neither. If you want to counter-claim for a few hundred pounds and allege that they have misused your data (particularly if they got your data as keeper, from the DVLA and not from you) then the counter claim goes at the bottom of the defence. And you would need to pay £25 by cheque or over the phone to CCBC as a court fee for your counterclaim.

Can be worth it if you have grounds for saying their claim is fatally flawed and they should never have obtained or processed DVLA data about you, due to the circs of the case. We can help with that wording if you have time and want to do this with your defence.

If that's too complicated then just file a defence, not a counterclaim. But you can still apply for the court to grant your costs for attending a hearing, nearer the time, around the time when you file a WS and evidence. That's called a 'costs schedule' a simple list which you include at that time, as per the costs schedule example linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2. Costs you no fee but it's up to the Judge if costs are granted.

• 1. 
     1.5. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they pursued the Defendant’s correct contact details however the Claimant chose to ignore the Defendant’s vehicle details, address and email address on their system and chose to send all communications to the address provided by the DVLA after first completely ignoring the fact that the vehicle’s details was on their systemand people can be caught in the process of moving home and updating the DVLA records. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.
     
     1.6. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty of due diligence to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim, and instead deliberately used the old address which was no longer valid when bringing the claim.
     
     1.7. 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 further believe that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.
     
     2.2. If the Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which I am the Registered Keeper, and used those details to make a claim for a “Parking Charge Notice’’, 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.
     
     2.3. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which I am the Registered Keeper, 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. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence and further submit that the Claimant does not include ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ 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. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that this any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the Default Judgement, 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.
     
     2.5. I further submit that the Claimant’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 Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.
     2.5.3. 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 gift of parking is the landowner’s, not Parking & Property Management. The car park in question is understood to be for residents. Therefore there is no consideration from motorist to Parking & Property Management.

• 1. This claimant may try to rely upon the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, regarding disproportionate charges. However, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court's decisions during the course of that case do not support this claim at all. Beavis was a matter concerning an unusual enforcement regime and location, offering a free licence to park followed after 2 hours, by a charge. Indeed at the Court of Appeal stage the Judges stated that the 'free licence to park' regime was the factor which made that case 'completely different' from ordinary transactional contracts where a sum of money owed can be easily quantified. I suggest, exactly as in my case, where a mere 10p has been quantified as the sum in dispute and surely any reasonable person would consider £100 (and certainly this vastly inflated claim) to be 'extravagant' and out of all proportion.
     
     
  2. The Supreme Court Judges did not disagree with the court of Appeal about ordinary economic contracts and found that such disputes may still be determined by using Lord Dunedin's 'four tests' for defining an unrecoverable penalty, which continues to have useful application in such cases where the facts could be distinguished from the Beavis case, where the Judges held:
     
     - at 32: ''The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation. The innocent party can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance.
     In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''
     
     - and, continued Lord Neuberger: ''as Lord Dunedin himself acknowledged, the essential question was whether the clause impugned was “unconscionable” or “extravagant”. The four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts.''
     
     - and at 99: ''…deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract...the question whether a contractual provision is a penalty turns on the construction of the contract.’’
     
     - Lord Mance at 143: ''The qualification and safeguard is that the agreed sum must not have been extravagant, unconscionable or incommensurate with any possible interest in the maintenance of the system.’’
     
     - Lord Mance at 152: ''What is necessary in each case is to consider, first, whether any (and if so what) legitimate business interest is served and protected by the clause, and, second, whether, assuming such an interest to exist, the provision made for the interest is nevertheless in the circumstances extravagant, exorbitant or unconscionable.''
     
     
  3. In ParkingEye v Cargius A0JD1405 (Wrexham County Court), transcript appended as Exhibit xx, a pay and display car park was held to be completely different from the Beavis case which was on its well-publicised journey through the courts at that time. At 13 in Cargius, the Judge distinguished a pay & display car park tariff dispute from the free car park in Beavis.
  4. .
     2.6. 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.
     
     
     Statement of Truth:
     I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
     Full name: XXX
     
     Dated 08/06/2017
     
     Signed: __________________________________

pappa_golf wrote: »

Parking and property management are IPC members? , how come they have not followed the code of conduct , http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/new-ipc-code-of-practice-weakens-data.html

Quote:

Before issuing court proceedings on any unpaid parking charge which is over 12 months old, the operator must first perform a suitable check of the defendant’s last known address.


this obviously was not done , I wonder if the IPC will sanction them?

• 1. 
     1.5. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they pursued the Defendant’s correct contact details however the Claimant chose to ignore the Defendant’s vehicle details, address and email address on their system and chose to send all communications to the address provided by the DVLA after first completely ignoring the fact that the vehicle’s details was on their systemand people can be caught in the process of moving home and updating the DVLA records. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.
     
     1.6. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty of due diligence to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim, and instead deliberately used the old address which was no longer valid when bringing the claim.
     
     1.7. 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 further believe that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.
     
     2.2. If the Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which I am the Registered Keeper, and used those details to make a claim for a “Parking Charge Notice’’, 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.