Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • tedharris02
    • By tedharris02 19th Jan 18, 10:42 PM
    • 38Posts
    • 40Thanks
    tedharris02
    CCJ Set Aside CP Plus
    • #1
    • 19th Jan 18, 10:42 PM
    CCJ Set Aside CP Plus 19th Jan 18 at 10:42 PM
    Hello folk

    I require your assistance in writing up a Set Aside for a CCJ, and in getting the claim dismissed. But I'll give you a quick background first:
    1) The Defendant is my mother, who is a registered keeper of the vehicle, and a staff member at Meadowhall
    2) She is one of 100s of staff members being issued with 'tickets'for parking at meadowhall, which you can read about online Star article titled "Staff facing '£18, 000 parking fines' claim amid row over car park at Meadowhall"
    3) She received a letter before claim, at which point I advised her to wait for a claim form, and that I would help to prepare her defence for her.
    4) Over a month passed by, no claim form came. Instead, she got a default judgement
    5) Her manager, her doctor and Human Resources are all trying to get any further charges dropped, and are appealing to CP Plus to stop ticketing her car constantly, but right now the issue is the CCJ that has already been issued by default

    (She has physical injuries which leave her in pain after a full shift at work on her feet, and the "staff car park" if it can be called that is 30 minutes walk for her, basically in Rotherham, it is also enturely inadequate and unsafe, as can be seen from the article).


    Anyway, in terms of the Set Aside, I have used existing templates to come up with the below, please advise if this is good, and what needs to be improved. Thanks and I appreciate any help. Hopefully, Ive managed to abide by the forum rules.




    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Witness Statement is in support of my application dated 19/01/2018 to
    • Set aside the Default Judgement dated XXX as it was not properly served at my current address;
    • Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;
    • Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

    1. Default Judgement

    1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant on XXX. However, this claim form has not been served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until XXX.
    1.2. On 10/12/2017 I received a letter from the Claimant to my current address, advising me of the intention to obtain a Court Judgement for the first time, and I had started to prepare my defence. However, having not received claim form, I was surprised and disappointed to receive a Default Judgement without having the opportunity to submit a defence.
    1.3. On 9/01/2018 I contacted Northampton County Court to find out details of the Default Judgement, and I was advised to seek a set aside, as I had not received a claim form, and had not been provided the opportunity to submit a defence.
    1.4. 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. I am the Registered Keeper of a vehicle against which the claim has been made and I dispute the claim in its entirety. I believe the claimant has no merit for the following reasons:
    2.3. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant violated the agreement by parking in a “No Staff Parking Zone” despite being a member of staff. This is a false claim, as there are no such zones in the car park. The signage clearly indicates that it is a violation of the terms to park as an “on-duty staff member”, as can be seen by the attached photo to this Witness Statement. The Defendant submits that neither the Claimant, nor their enforcement staff, made any attempts to discern whether the Defended (who is a staff member) was on duty or not at the time, and issued ‘tickets’ even when provided with shopping receipts to demonstrate the Defendant was at the car park as a customer.
    2.4. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant was the driver at the time of all the alleged contravention. I strongly deny this claim, as the Claimant has provided no evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, the Defendant’s husband, XXXXXXXX (who is not, and has never been a staff member), has regular use of the vehicle, and has used the car park in this vehicle. Neither the Claimant, nor their enforcement staff, had made any efforts to discern who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the alleged contraventions.
    2.5. The Claimant has issued a request for a payment of £120 for each alleged contravention, despite the signage clearly stating that charge for violating the terms and conditions is £80. I believe this is an attempt by the Claimant to extract extra profits without any justification from the Defendant, and has no contractual bases.
    2.6. The Claimant has failed to provide adequate staff parking in Meadowhall and has deliberately set out on a campaign to profit from staff members, regardless of whether or not they were driving the vehicle, or were off-duty. I believe the Claimant has acted entirely unreasonably in its pursuit of the charges, and how it operates the car park.
    2.7. I also believe that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons.
    2.8. 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.
    2.9. 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 zero or negligible.
    *
    [Although from what I read this no longer seems valid?]*

    2.10. Claimed charge is an Unenforceable Penalty: I further submit that the Parking Charge that the Claimant claimed, given it is not based on any loss suffered due to the alleged breach, is nothing but an unenforceable penalty
    2.11. No contract with the claimant. Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from CP Plus to the motorist; the gift of parking is the landowner’s, not that of CP Plus. The car park in question is understood to be free. Therefore there is no consideration from motorist to CP Plus.
    2.12. 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.
    Last edited by tedharris02; 19-01-2018 at 10:56 PM.
Page 3
    • Circs123
    • By Circs123 20th Feb 18, 7:36 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Circs123
    Darren.Pearce@meadowhall.co.uk

    I have had email from MP Gill Furniss stating Meadowhall IS NOT in her constituency. I also emailed my own MP Clive Betts and he replied yesterday stating he will act on our behalf. Not sure exactly what that involves but it's a start.
    We received info from DVLA yesterday that we requested regarding the frequency that CP Plus asked for keeper details. 9 alleged offences were requested from between 70 odd days up to 114 days after the windscreen ticket!!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th Feb 18, 7:43 PM
    • 19,691 Posts
    • 31,162 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    9 alleged offences were requested from between 70 odd days up to 114 days after the windscreen ticket!!
    None of which could invoke Keeper Liability. Easy wins (had they been taken) at POPLA.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Pinklady0805
    • By Pinklady0805 21st Feb 18, 12:10 AM
    • 97 Posts
    • 73 Thanks
    Pinklady0805
    Hi , I’ve not a clue about getting it set aside but I can give you plenty of helpful advice if you can get it transferred back to scs law or even court. ?
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 21st Feb 18, 1:16 AM
    • 198 Posts
    • 329 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    Darren.Pearce@meadowhall.co.uk

    I have had email from MP Gill Furniss stating Meadowhall IS NOT in her constituency. I also emailed my own MP Clive Betts and he replied yesterday stating he will act on our behalf. Not sure exactly what that involves but it's a start.
    We received info from DVLA yesterday that we requested regarding the frequency that CP Plus asked for keeper details. 9 alleged offences were requested from between 70 odd days up to 114 days after the windscreen ticket!!
    Originally posted by Circs123
    Sorry my bad in suggesting Gill Furniss. Yes Meadowhall falls just inside Clive Bett's Sheffield South East Constituency ( the river is the boundary), he is my MP too.
    • tedharris02
    • By tedharris02 21st Feb 18, 10:28 AM
    • 38 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    tedharris02
    Hi , I’ve not a clue about getting it set aside but I can give you plenty of helpful advice if you can get it transferred back to scs law or even court. ?
    Originally posted by Pinklady0805
    Hi PinkLady
    Yes, that would be very helpful, thank you. Im sure we have a strong enough case to get the set aside so that will basically reset the process. I will also pursue Darren Pierce.

    Should I write to him on behalf of my mother so I can deal with the correspondence, or should I get my mother to write to him?
    • Circs123
    • By Circs123 24th Feb 18, 11:55 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Circs123
    Tedharris
    I just emailed him and he replied the same day although he never responded to my follow up email. I don't expect it to make a difference but I just wanted to let him know my feelings!!
    • tedharris02
    • By tedharris02 12th Apr 18, 9:59 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    tedharris02
    UPDATE

    We won the case! THANK YOU ALL FOR YOU HELP!

    So, we got the set aside, as CP Plus/SCS didnt wish to challenge our set aside, and didnt turn up in court. The judge gave my mum a set aside with the instructions to submit full defence in 14 days, and send a copy to SCS law.

    Which we did. SCS wrote back saying CP Plus will discontinue the case.

    Now all thats left is to reclaim that 255 quid and to send a letter to Darren Pearce demanding for them to make reasonable adjustments for my mother and to leave her alone.

    Interestingly, she hadnt got a single charge while this whole battle in court has been going on. Not sure why though. But either way it needs to remain that way.
    • Circs123
    • By Circs123 26th Apr 18, 3:28 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Circs123
    Top result Ted Harris !!
    Miss A who I was assisting also received a letter stating SCS Law have dropped the case against her which was for over 2 grand.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Apr 18, 12:54 AM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,656 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Wonder if GDPR is making them realise the DPA issues with this little game, and the owner clearly wants the Dept for Transport to think CP Plus play nicely, to avoid scrutiny.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

117Posts Today

1,452Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Lovely package on #newsnight just now about Brexit hitchhiking, livened up what has been not the most exciting show.

  • Is this is a serious tweet or a joke? Why did I mention he was a cyclist - because he was a cyclist. Eh? https://t.co/F1SP7UJZkH

  • How awful Mark. This is why those people who take risks on the road, have to realise while they think they're gamb? https://t.co/berU23vQOU

  • Follow Martin