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
    • AdoptedNortherner
    • By AdoptedNortherner 30th Sep 18, 1:30 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 5Thanks
    AdoptedNortherner
    CCJ Set Aside Help - Residential Parking
    • #1
    • 30th Sep 18, 1:30 PM
    CCJ Set Aside Help - Residential Parking 30th Sep 18 at 1:30 PM
    Hi guys,

    First, some context for this thread:

    My partner and I agreed to rent a property that came with a parking space in April 2016.

    UK Parking Patrol were operating in the car park before we moved in. We had to find out ourselves, receive permits and so on - intially, no problems.

    It then so happens in February 2017, our permit was deemed as "not clearly visible" with evidence by UKPPprovided. We got slapped with two charges over the course of 4 days. We were parked fully within our own parking space (we have never parked anywhere else within the carpark) but our permit had slipped down and the details weren't clearly visible. We appealed both tickets with UKPP on the grounds that we were parked in our own already paid for parking space and they agreed to cancel one of them.

    We immediately appealed again because both charges were for the exact same thing and we didn't feel it was fair that one was cancelled and not the other. They advised that to appeal the second charge we would need to go externally to the Independant Appeals Service which we did, but they rejected the appeal at the end of Feb 2017. We then made contact to discuss further as we didn't feel the verdict was fair.

    Shortly after we were told our landlord was selling the property so all of our efforts went into finding somewhere else to live then in May 2017 we moved into a different apartment block.

    When moving we notified the DVLA straight away - but this morning we realised the V5C address change is a separate process which we didn't know about.

    Today my partner realised she has a CCJ applied on her record by receiving an automated credit report update, we've immediately looked up the case which was raised in August and we've missed the payment period.

    We had no acknowledgement of the original summons, because we have obviously moved address and UKPP and whoever their legal reps are have likely contacted our old address.

    This is all for the total sum of £201

    Regarding our set-aside process:

    1) Giving a reason why we failed to defend the case

    The answer to that is we moved residence so didn't receive notification of court summons.

    2) a reason why we would win a rehearing

    The major one that stands out for us is the primacy of contract - whereby we agreed to a let that came with a parking space and the whole premise of paying for a space we already use.

    We do have two of us insured on the vehicle, and did at the time. My partner may have assumed liability as the person appealing, but only as she is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    Is there an argument for the claimant not obtaining the correct details if although we updated our DVLA record, we didn't make the appropriate change to the V5C?

    We don't have photographic evidence in contrary to UKPP's for the original claim

    The signs throughout the car park were pretty obvious and everywhere - signage= hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/wmdojr.png (replace xx with tt in link)

    Is the "claimaint was not out of pocket" a redundant argument to make, I keep reading conflicting opinions?

    Obviously being hit with this type of thing is an absolute killer for two people just trying to make their way into purchasing a home and so on so we're desperate to get this washed off the record if we can.

    I'd really appreciate any help/pointers and guidance on the best position for our case.

    The next steps will be to put together a statement in conjunction with the set aside appeal. But on what basis we're confident of winning a set aside is where we're a little unconfident.

    If any more information is useful to provide, I am happy to.

    Thank you in advance to all who take the time to reply.
    Last edited by AdoptedNortherner; 04-10-2018 at 12:48 PM.
Page 1
    • Eljayjay2
    • By Eljayjay2 30th Sep 18, 2:07 PM
    • 47 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    Eljayjay2
    • #2
    • 30th Sep 18, 2:07 PM
    • #2
    • 30th Sep 18, 2:07 PM
    I presume that it was a leasehold flat and that your landlord was its leasehold owner.


    In addition to heeding the advice of others about what you need to do about the CCJ, you ideally need to get hold of two documents: your tenancy agreement; and your landlord's lease.


    I am hoping that you still have your tenancy agreement. Insofar as your landlord's lease is concerned, if you cannot get a copy by any other means, you can apply to the Land Registry for a copy by completing a form OC2 and paying a modest fee. Unfortunately, you cannot do this online.


    Post the documents here in their entirety when you have them (after redacting any personal details).


    The likelihood is that the parking space or the right to park in it belonged to your landlord and whoever entered into a contract with the parking operator (quite possibly a management company or managing agents) had no right to permit the operator to use the parking space for the purpose of its business.
    Last edited by Eljayjay2; 30-09-2018 at 2:13 PM.
    • AdoptedNortherner
    • By AdoptedNortherner 30th Sep 18, 5:09 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    AdoptedNortherner
    • #3
    • 30th Sep 18, 5:09 PM
    • #3
    • 30th Sep 18, 5:09 PM
    Thanks Eljayjay2,

    Correct, it was leasehold and we do still have our previous tenancy agreement.

    We will be contacting our previous letting agency to see if we can obtain a copy of the (at the time) landlords lease agreement; they have since sold the property hence why we moved out at the time.

    Otherwise we'll go down the route of obtaining a copy of the document from the Land Registry.

    Much appreciated.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 1st Oct 18, 6:27 PM
    • 10,247 Posts
    • 10,136 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 1st Oct 18, 6:27 PM
    • #4
    • 1st Oct 18, 6:27 PM
    I have just taken the posts at face value, the advice is sound imo. Does it matter who wrote them?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • AdoptedNortherner
    • By AdoptedNortherner 1st Oct 18, 9:58 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    AdoptedNortherner
    • #5
    • 1st Oct 18, 9:58 PM
    • #5
    • 1st Oct 18, 9:58 PM
    I am XXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter. This my supporting Statement in support of my application dated XX October 2018 to:

    1. Set aside the Default Judgement dated XXXX 2018 as it was not properly served at my current address and order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;

    2. Order for the original claim to be dismissed


    1. Default Judgement

    1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The claim relates to an alleged debt arising from parking in my residential, allocated parking bay

    1.2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant on XX XXXX 2018. I am aware that the Claimant is UK Parking Patrol Ltd, and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from the XX XXXX 2016 at my then residence XXXXXXXXX. I further contest this charge for the reasons outlined in Part 2 of this defence.

    1.3. The claim form was not served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until XX September 2018 following notification of an automated credit report update; as found in Schedule (A)

    I assume that this Claim was served at, XXXXX. However, I moved to a new address at XXXXXX on the XX XXXX 2017. In support of this I can provide a scanned copy of my tenancy agreement as signed upon the same date by myself and our existing letting agent; Schedule (B)

    1.4. Immediately upon moving to the new address I contacted the DVLA with notification of a change of address; Schedule (C)

    1.9. In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the integrity and law-abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that;

    1.9.1 I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the XX September 2018

    1.9.2 On XX October I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgement; the particulars of the claim only containing “outstanding debt and damages” as reason for the claim - this is inserted into Point X.X below and (Schedule D)

    1.9.3 On XX October I have willfully submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgement and fairly present my case



    1.4. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s correct contact details at the time of the claim. They have used information that was 14 months out of date. In addition, following an initial appeal on previously disregarded parking charges; UKPP have both my email address and phone number which haven’t changed.

    1.5. On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address that the Defendant no longer resides. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence despite having 14 months to establish an address between our vacation of residence (June 2017) and the default judgment (August 2018). This has led to a defective service and an irregular judgement. As the proceedings were not validly served, it leads to no service and thus they are not entitled to judgement and the court must set aside the claim

    1.6. I do acknowledge UKPP’s limitations in obtaining details considering there is also an ongoing case between UK Parking Patrol Ltd and the DVLA whereby the former are now banned from accessing driver information due to their conduct in obtaining and misusing driver data; this being indicative of their overall conduct as an organisation.

    1.7. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

    Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses."

    The Minister added "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That 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.” Furtherance to points raised in 1.3 above.

    1.8. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £255 from the claimant should this request be successful.





    2. Order for the original claim to be dismissed

    2.1 I am aware that the claim is for an unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the grounds for this are laid out below in further detail

    2.2 Primacy of Contract; It is denied that I the Defendant or lawful users of the vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land.

    I assert that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.




    2.3 I as the Defendant aver that the operator’s signs cannot:

    (a) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and

    (b) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease.

    The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) (Schedule E) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 (Schedule F). The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.


    2.2. 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.

    2.3. I submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:

    2.3.1. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is not the landowner of the car park in question, and has 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.

    2.3.2. 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. Evidence of this is held within the existing tenancy agreement to lease the property, within which included the allocated parking space the vehicle where the vehicle was parked.

    2.3.3. 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; there are no fees for parking as residents as this is factored into tenancy; see 2.2 above.

    Therefore there is no consideration from motorist to claimant.

    2.4. 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.

    2.5. Alternatively, if the Claimant disagrees with the above, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least all of the following information:

    2.5.1. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge

    2.5.2. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)

    2.5.3. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)

    2.5.4. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper

    2.5.5. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter

    2.5.6. Information obtained from the County Court Business Centre does goes on to state (for which evidence will be provided upon a set-aside hearing):

    “THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT THE RATE OF 8% A YEAR FROM XX/01/2017 TO XX/07/2018 ON £176.05 AND ALSO INTEREST AT THE SAME
    RATE UP TO THE DATE OF JUDGMENT OR EARLIER PAYMENT AT A DAILY RATE OF £0.03.”

    4.1 However, with only one charge that could be claimed as outstanding of £100, evidence must be supplied as to how an atttempt to double the recovery has been made with the appropriate breakdowns.


    2.6. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

    2.7. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of a vehicle, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant
    2.8. 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 ‘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

    2.9. I further believe this Claim relates to a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ issued on XX XXXX 201X and therefore the Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom Act 2012 does not apply and the Registered Keeper of the vehicle cannot be held liable where a breach of contract may have occurred by a driver of a vehicle the Defendant is the Registered Keeper and where said keeper is unable to identify the driver.

    2.10. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car over 16 months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

    2.11. For the Claimant to have obliged the Defendant to provide the drivers details at the time of said breach the Claimant would be required to apply for a ‘Norwich Pharmacal Order’, I am not aware of any such order being made upon the Defendant.

    2.12. Furthermore, given the time delay of approximately more than a year from the alleged breach of contract, it is unreasonable to expect the Defendant to have a record of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence.


    2.13. On the basis of assumption, without the chance to fully review the claim made by the Claimant; it is acknowledged and accepted I made an original appeal to charges applied to my vehicle of which there were two separate charges.

    2.14 Of the two cases raised for equal amounts (both £100), one was dismissed. The other was upheld and I was forced to appeal through UKPP’s independent adjudicator partners the Independent Appeals Service. Disregarding the obvious illegitimacy of this service which I do not deem an adequate impartial adjudicator; there are two resounding areas of inconsistency:

    With one charge removed for the same alleged breach of contract, there is no consistency in enforcement of their own supposed management. This indicates the intention to simply “earn a quick buck” by offering a standalone charge to incentivise a swift payment

    With the removal of one charge and one outstanding of £100, there needs to be evidence of how a parking charge which the BPA Code of Practice has earmarked the limit of £100 has now doubled to the sum total of £201; remembering POFA’s code also stipulates a keeper can only be persued for the sum on the Notice to Keeper (double-recovery is not allowed)

    2.15. In conjunction with the outstanding claim being made against me; it is common knowledge amongst a number of other tenants / land-owners at the resident property the claim is pertaining to, that there are several cases ongoing with the same organisation UK Parking Patrol;

    12.15.1 There are many cases wherein UK Parking Patrol have rescinded their charges on the basis a victim of their claims is a tenant and is lawfully able to park on their land (leased or owned)

    12.15.2 This is inconsistent on the basis upon which the claimant is attempting to charge the defendant; examples of such cases are able to be provided upon any hearing


    2.16 On the basis of the above, 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.
    Last edited by AdoptedNortherner; 02-10-2018 at 10:56 AM. Reason: Formatting
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 2nd Oct 18, 11:22 AM
    • 3,722 Posts
    • 4,532 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #6
    • 2nd Oct 18, 11:22 AM
    • #6
    • 2nd Oct 18, 11:22 AM
    Yes, just a bullet list.
    Yes, point out that the scheme cannot have been brought in to penalise residents.
    • AdoptedNortherner
    • By AdoptedNortherner 3rd Oct 18, 4:23 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    AdoptedNortherner
    • #7
    • 3rd Oct 18, 4:23 PM
    • #7
    • 3rd Oct 18, 4:23 PM
    Hi all,

    Thank you all for your help thus far - I've been keeping tabs on some of the other threads happening and have made some amends to our set-aside SD - this is with the inclusion of a summary of events & examples of an existing case thrown out by UKPP for the same charges they claim against us.


    I do have some additional questions if anyone can help provide an answer:

    1) I may be able to group together 2-3 more examples of appeals accepted from other tenants in the building for the same incidents, all consensual - is this 100% a valid argument to include?

    2) If I was to get a statement from one of my building directors (he's a tenants, hates the company and wants to remove them) - could this carry weight for my appeal and what should I ask for them to state?

    3) On the basis we're not 100% sure if we've already commited to admitting who was driving, is the below section 2.8 - 2.11 redundant and worth including? I know this is a strong argument, upon which a lot of these cases are holding merit - but should it be held as UKPP having to prove?

    Any other feedback would be amazing.


    _______________________________

    I am XXX XXXXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter. This my supporting Statement in support of my application dated XX October 2018 to:

    1. Set aside the Default Judgement dated XX August 2018 as it was not properly served at my current address and order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;

    2. Order for the original claim to be dismissed


    In advance of my statements and for the benefit of clarity, I would first like to present a summary of events:

    - The UK Parking Patrol Office issued two Parking Charge Notices to my vehicle on XX/XX/2017 (PCN XXXX) and XX/XX/2017 (PCN XXXXX). A valid parking permit was on display but had dislodged meaning only the top of the permit detailing the parking bay number was visible.

    - Once the PCN’s were discovered, we immediately appealed the charges online, directly with UKPP (schedule X)

    - On XX/02/2017 I received two emails from UKPP:

    The first email received was regarding PCN XXXXX (issued XX/XX/2017) from UKPP advised that, quote; “after careful consideration to the points made and the information provided we are pleased to advise that the appeal has been successful and the charge has been cancelled” (schedule X).
    The second email received was regarding PCN XXXXXX (issued XX/XX/2017). UKPP advised they were going to reject the appeal (schedule X) which I subsequently argued as unacceptable as both PCN’s were for the same case and cause.

    - On XX/XX/2017 I started the appeals process online with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). I received regular emails from the IAS on 10/02/2017, 11/02/2017 and 15/02/2017 (SCHEDULES) detailing progress of my application.

    - By 16/02/2017 both myself and UKPP had submitted our statements and evidence and the IAS confirmed the appeal was ready to be assessed

    - On 28/02/2017 the appeal was dismissed by an adjudicator on the grounds that the permit was displayed in such a way that it was not capable of being read from outside the vehicle (schedule X). The second cancelled PCN XXXXX was not referred to. The dismissal was sent from a ‘noreply’ email address and it was advised in the dismissal that the IAS would be unable to intervene further on this matter.

    - On 03/03/2017 I received a letter from UKPP advising my appeal had been unsuccessful followed by details of how to pay the account balance of £100 (Schedule X).

    - On 06/03/2017 I sent a letter in response to UKPP disputing the IAS verdict, detailing my reasons for not agreeing with the charges still being valid for PCN XXXXXX. No response was received to this letter and no further correspondence was received via post, email or telephone with regards to the charge for PCN XXXXX.

    - In April 2017 we were given notice that our landlord was reclaiming the property in order to sell it; therefore we had to begin preparing to vacate the property

    - The following two months of April and May were occupied with finding a new place to live

    - On 02/06/2017 we moved into our new and still current address XXXXXX; (Schedule X)

    - We immediately notified the DVLA of our change of address (Schedule X)

    - On 30/09/2018 I received an email from an automated service advising that my experian credit score had changed (schedule X). I immediately logged in to my Experian Credit account to access my Credit Report which stated under ‘Court Data’ that I have either one or more recent or uncleared County Court Judgements (CCJs), (Schedule X).

    - Immediately after viewing my Credit Report, we completed a search through Registry Trust Limited on 30/09/2018 who issued a search result detailing the County Court Business Centre CCJ that was dated XX/XX/2018 under XXXXXXX (Schedule X). This was the first I had heard about the CCJ or any court related charges.

    - On XX/XX/2018 I called the County Court Business Centre and spoke to XXX who confirmed the debt had been filed against me by UKPP. Upon request, XXX agreed to email information regarding the claim on the same day; (Schedule X).


    1. Default Judgement

    1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The claim relates to an alleged debt arising from parking in my residential, allocated parking bay

    1.2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant on XX August 2018. I am aware that the Claimant is UK Parking Patrol Ltd, and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from the XX January 2016 at my then residence XXX XXXXXX. I further contest this charge for the reasons outlined in Part 2 of this defence.

    1.3. The claim form was not served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until 30 September 2018 following notification of an automated credit report update; aforementioned in the event summary and evidence of in Schedule (A)

    I assume that this Claim was served at, XXXX. However, I moved to a new address at XXXXX on the XX June 2017. In support of this I can provide a scanned copy of my tenancy agreement as signed upon the same date by myself and our existing letting agent; Schedule (B)

    1.4. Immediately upon moving to the new address I contacted the DVLA with notification of a change of address; Schedule (C)

    1.5. In addition to the above, it should be highlighted the swift and law-abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that;

    1.5.1 I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the 30th September 2018

    1.5.2 On 1st October I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgement; the particulars of the claim only containing “outstanding debt and damages” as reason for the claim - this is inserted into Point X.X below and (Schedule D)

    1.5.3 On XX October I have willfully submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgement and fairly present my case

    1.4. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s correct contact details at the time of the claim. They have used information that was 14 months out of date. In addition, following an initial appeal on previously disregarded parking charges; UKPP have both my email address and phone number which haven’t changed.

    1.5. On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address that the Defendant no longer resides. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence despite having 14 months to establish an address between our vacation of residence (June 2017) and the default judgment (August 2018). This has led to a defective service and an irregular judgement. As the proceedings were not validly served, it leads to no service and thus they are not entitled to judgement and the court must set aside the claim

    1.6. I do acknowledge UKPP’s limitations in obtaining details considering there is also an ongoing case between UK Parking Patrol Ltd and the DVLA whereby the former are now banned from accessing driver information due to their conduct in obtaining and misusing driver data; this being indicative of their overall conduct as an organisation.

    1.7. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

    Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses."

    The Minister added "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That 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.” Furtherance to points raised in 1.3 above.

    1.8. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £255 from the claimant should this request be successful.



    2. Order for the original claim to be dismissed

    2.1 I am aware that the claim is for an unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the grounds for this are laid out below in further detail

    2.2 Primacy of Contract; It is denied that I the Defendant or lawful users of the vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land.

    I assert that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.


    2.3 I as the Defendant aver that the operator’s signs cannot:

    (a) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and

    (b) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease.

    The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) (Schedule E) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 (Schedule F). The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.


    2.2. 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.

    2.3. I submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:

    2.3.1. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is not the landowner of the car park in question, and has 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.

    2.3.2. 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. Evidence of this is held within the existing tenancy agreement to lease the property, within which included the allocated parking space the vehicle where the vehicle was parked.

    2.3.3. 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; there are no fees for parking as residents as this is factored into tenancy; see 2.2 above.

    Therefore there is no consideration from motorist to claimant.

    2.4. 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.

    2.5. Alternatively, if the Claimant disagrees with the above, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least all of the following information:

    2.5.1. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge

    2.5.2. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)

    2.5.3. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)

    2.5.4. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper

    2.5.5. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter

    2.5.6. Information obtained from the County Court Business Centre does goes on to state (for which evidence will be provided upon a set-aside hearing):

    “THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT THE RATE OF 8% A YEAR FROM 31/01/2017 TO 20/07/2018 ON £176.05 AND ALSO INTEREST AT THE SAME
    RATE UP TO THE DATE OF JUDGMENT OR EARLIER PAYMENT AT A DAILY RATE OF £0.03.”

    4.1 However, with only one charge that could be claimed as outstanding of £100. Evidence must be supplied as to how an attempt to double the recovery has been made.


    2.6. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

    2.7. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of a vehicle, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant

    2.8. I further believe this Claim relates to a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ issued on XX XXXX 201X and therefore the Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom Act 2012 does not apply and the Registered Keeper of the vehicle cannot be held liable where a breach of contract may have occurred by a driver of a vehicle the Defendant is the Registered Keeper and where said keeper is unable to identify the driver

    2.9. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car over 16 months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument

    2.10. For the Claimant to have obliged the Defendant to provide the drivers details at the time of said breach the Claimant would be required to apply for a ‘Norwich Pharmacal Order’, I am not aware of any such order being made upon the Defendant.

    2.11. Furthermore, given the time delay of approximately more than a year from the alleged breach of contract, it is unreasonable to expect the Defendant to have a record of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence.


    2.12. On the basis of assumption, without the chance to fully review the claim made by the Claimant; it is acknowledged and accepted I made an original appeal to charges applied to my vehicle of which there were two separate charges.

    2.13. Of the two cases raised for equal amounts (both £100), one was dismissed. The other was upheld and I was forced to appeal through UKPP’s independent adjudicator partners the Independent Appeals Service. Disregarding the obvious illegitimacy of this service which I do not deem an adequate impartial adjudicator; there are two resounding areas of inconsistency:

    - With one charge removed for the same alleged breach of contract, there is no consistency in enforcement of their own supposed management. This indicates the intention to simply “earn a quick buck” by offering a standalone charge to incentivise a swift payment

    - With the removal of one charge and one outstanding of £100, there needs to be evidence of how a parking charge which the BPA Code of Practice has earmarked the limit of £100 has now doubled to the sum total of £201; remembering POFA’s code also stipulates a keeper can only be persued for the sum on the Notice to Keeper (double-recovery is not allowed)

    2.14. In conjunction with the outstanding claim being made against me; it is common knowledge amongst a number of other tenants / land-owners at the resident property the claim is pertaining to, that there are several cases ongoing with the same organisation, UK Parking Patrol;

    12.15.1 There are many cases wherein UK Parking Patrol have rescinded their charges on the basis a victim of their claims is a tenant and is lawfully able to park on their land (leased or owned)

    12.15.2 One such case is that of tenant XXXX XXXXX; PCN Ref: XXXXX,

    XXXX was charged for failing to display their permit on their vehicle. Upon openly admitting to UKPP that he had simply “forgotten” to display it and subsequently sending through photographic evidence of their allocated permit, UKPP agreed to rescind the charge (Schedule X)

    12.15.3 This is inconsistent on the basis upon which the claimant is attempting to charge the defendant; examples of such cases are able to be provided upon any hearing


    2.16 On the basis of all arguments provided; 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.
    Last edited by AdoptedNortherner; 03-10-2018 at 4:27 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Oct 18, 4:33 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 3rd Oct 18, 4:33 PM
    • #8
    • 3rd Oct 18, 4:33 PM
    1) I may be able to group together 2-3 more examples of appeals accepted from other tenants in the building for the same incidents, all consensual - is this 100% a valid argument to include?
    Yes.


    2) If I was to get a statement from one of my building directors (he's a tenants, hates the company and wants to remove them) - could this carry weight for my appeal and what should I ask for them to state?
    Yes, but it's not an appeal, it's an application to set aside, then defence once it's back to claim stage.

    They should state at the start, who they are, what their connection is and what information they know from experience of the scammers. And state that it is their honest belief that the parking operator is:

    - out of control
    - targeting tenants, as these firms always do because that's how they make money
    - acting in a predatory way
    - refusing to cancel PCNs, and have no valid/fair appeals system due to not being in the BPA
    - acting against the rights & interests of residents
    - creating a private nuisance, interfering with leases and causing a derogation from grant to people who have rights and easements on their land
    - that there is no legitimate interest and the fines are punitive, not contractual, as the residents can already park there and have leases and ASTs that are being trodden all over.

    He then signs & dates the WS under a statement of truth (Google it).


    (the words in bold are definite phrases to get in).


    P.S. re this:

    I started the appeals process online with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS)
    I hope you now know there was no independent appeal, and that the IAS are/were run by the same Directors as the IPC Trade Body AND Gladstones Solicitors...the firm who start court claims every day for parking firms.

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/all-change-at-gladstones-and-ipc.html
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 03-10-2018 at 4:36 PM.
    • AdoptedNortherner
    • By AdoptedNortherner 3rd Oct 18, 6:05 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    AdoptedNortherner
    • #9
    • 3rd Oct 18, 6:05 PM
    • #9
    • 3rd Oct 18, 6:05 PM


    Yes, but it's not an appeal, it's an application to set aside, then defence once it's back to claim stage.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    100% - just a turn of phrase I used.


    P.S. re this:

    I hope you now know there was no independent appeal, and that the IAS are/were run by the same Directors as the IPC Trade Body AND Gladstones Solicitors...the firm who start court claims every day for parking firms.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yes, amazing that was something I knew I had to dig through and find again after reading it a few days ago. I'll incorporate this into the application to drive the point home.

    Also any chance you've got any feedback on this?

    "3) On the basis we're not 100% sure if we've already commited to admitting who was driving, is the below section 2.8 - 2.11 redundant and worth including? I know this is a strong argument, upon which a lot of these cases are holding merit - but should it be held as UKPP having to prove?"
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Oct 18, 9:09 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    "3) On the basis we're not 100% sure if we've already commited to admitting who was driving, is the below section 2.8 - 2.11 redundant and worth including? I know this is a strong argument, upon which a lot of these cases are holding merit - but should it be held as UKPP having to prove?"
    Leave it in, but send UKPPO a subject access request; search the forum for SAR and ask their Data Protection Officer to supply:

    - all photos taken that day
    - all data, including all letters and emails exchanged to/from you
    - all status/case updates, notes on the file, electronic or on paper
    - a copy of the sign that day (not a stock image 'here's a sign we made earlier'!).

    They have to reply within 30 days so by the time the set aside has been agreed AND you are about to actually defend the claim, you will have seen their hand.
    • AdoptedNortherner
    • By AdoptedNortherner 3rd Oct 18, 11:39 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    AdoptedNortherner
    Great idea.

    I wanted to clarify on a previous point made on another thread:

    If the lease is silent on the requirement to display a permit, and is silent on a third party having the right to charge a resident £100 for not displaying one, it begs the question, why are you displaying one in the first place?

    Part of your defence will be that there is no contract between you and the scammers, and your lease has primacy of contract and cannot be overruled by a third party. Your lease does not require you to display a permit, and this overrides anything the unregulated scammers say.


    But what if the lease is largely silent altogether with the allocation of a space? The only mentions of any vehicle relate to not storing vehicles such as caravans, boats etc; or carrying out works on vehicles other than upkeep on those for which we're registered keepers?
    Last edited by AdoptedNortherner; 04-10-2018 at 1:22 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Oct 18, 11:53 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Not really an issue, surely there must have been another way you learnt about the allocated bay?

    Email telling you your bay is xx?

    Advert about the flat?
    • AdoptedNortherner
    • By AdoptedNortherner 4th Oct 18, 1:19 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    AdoptedNortherner
    Not really an issue, surely there must have been another way you learnt about the allocated bay?

    Email telling you your bay is xx?

    Advert about the flat?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    You over-estimate the standard of our then letting agent.

    No email confirming it.

    I do have a scan of our keys with, in handwriting, the number of our allocated bay written on the scan.

    I do have the original advert for the property.

    I will also attempt to get confirmation of the allocated space and parking from our previous letting agent.

    Would that be enough?

    Also, is anyone able to relay or point me towards somewhere identifying standards that have to be met when bringing forward photo evidence for the original charge? We've noticed that aside from the photo's of the vehicle, the photo's they've used to exemplify the signs posted in the car park aren't actually in the area of the car park our vehicle was.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 4th Oct 18, 2:56 PM
    • 3,722 Posts
    • 4,532 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Yes, that would be enough for me to show you have the clear expectaiton of a space, no thing saying otherwise, and nothing saying the space is conditional on having and displaying a permit.

    There are no standards
    You just chalenge them to produce photos of the area the vehicle was parked, not the ones they have produced already, and can do that on the day - even better if you can state theyre different and you have your own photos showing it, because then they have mislead the court....
    • AdoptedNortherner
    • By AdoptedNortherner 8th Oct 18, 6:51 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    AdoptedNortherner
    Hi all,

    So we've been finalising our set-aside application to hopefully send off in the next day or so.

    Can I please ask anyone to examine it and provide any feedback on points worth clearing up, re-wording, highlighting etc? All your help as always is much appreciated.

    _____________________________________________


    I am XXX XXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter. This my Statement in support of my application dated XX October 2018 to:

    1. Set aside the Default Judgement dated XX August 2018 as it was not properly served at my current address and order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;

    2. Order for the original claim to be dismissed

    For the benefit of clarity, I'd like to supply a summary of events leading to the below application.

    Summary of events

    The UK Parking Patrol Office issued two Parking Charge Notices to our vehicle on 31/01/2017 (PCN XXXXX); Schedule (A) and 01/02/2017 (PCN XXXXX). The parking permit was on display but had slipped, resulting in only partial visibility of the permit.

    Once the PCN’s were discovered, we immediately appealed the charges online, directly with UKPP

    On 09/02/2017 I received two emails from UKPP:

    The first email received was regarding PCN XXXXXX (issued 01/02/2017) from UKPP advised that, quote; “Careful consideration has been given to the points you have made in your representation and the information provided. I am pleased to inform you that your appeal has been successful and the charge has now been cancelled” (Schedule B).
    The second correspondence was received regarding PCN XXXXX (issued 31/01/2017). UKPP advised they were rejecting the appeal (Schedule C) which was argued as unacceptable as both PCN’s were for the same case and cause.

    On 10/02/2017 I started the appeals process online with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). I received regular emails from the IAS on XX/XX/2017, XX/XX/2017 and XX/XX/2017 (Schedule D) detailing progress of my application.

    By 16/02/2017 both myself and UKPP had submitted our statements and evidence and the IAS confirmed the appeal was ready to be assessed

    On 28/02/2017 I received an email stating that the appeal was dismissed by an adjudicator on the grounds that the permit was displayed in such a way that it was not capable of being read from outside the vehicle (Schedule E). The cancelled charge for PCN XXXXX was not referred to. The dismissal was sent from a ‘noreply’ email address and it was advised that the IAS would be unable to intervene further on this matter.

    On 03/03/2017 I received a letter from UKPP advising my appeal had been unsuccessful with details of how to pay the charge of £100 (Schedule F).

    On 06/03/2017 I sent a letter in response to UKPP disputing the IAS verdict, detailing my reasons for not agreeing with the charges still being valid for PCN XXXXX (Schedule G). No response was received to this letter and no further correspondence was received via post, email or telephone from the Claimant with regards to the charge for PCN XXXXX.

    On 25th April 2017 we were given notice that our landlord was reclaiming the property in order to sell it (Schedule H); therefore we had to begin preparing to vacate the property

    On 02/06/2017 we moved into our new and still current address XXXXXX; (Schedule I)

    We quickly notified the DVLA of our change of address (Schedule J)

    On 30/09/2018 I received an email from an automated service advising that my experian credit score had changed (Schedule K). I immediately logged in to my Experian Credit account to access my Credit Report which stated under ‘Court Data’ that I have either one or more recent or uncleared County Court Judgements (CCJs).

    Immediately after viewing my Credit Report, we completed a search through Registry Trust Limited on 30/09/2018 who issued a search result detailing the County Court Business Centre CCJ that was dated 15/08/2018 under XXXXXXX (Schedule L). This was the first I had heard about the CCJ or any court related charges.

    On 01/10/2018 I called the County Court Business Centre and spoke to XXX who confirmed the debt had been filed against me by UKPP. Upon request, XXX agreed to email information regarding the claim on the same day; (Schedule M).


    1. Default Judgement

    1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The claim relates to an alleged debt arising from parking in my residential, allocated parking bay

    1.2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant on XX August 2018. I am aware that the Claimant is UK Parking Patrol Ltd, and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from the XX January 2016 at my then residence XXXXX. I further contest this charge for the reasons outlined in Part 2 of this defence.

    1.3. The claim form was not served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until 30 September 2018 following notification of an automated credit report update; as found in Schedule (K)

    I assume that this Claim was served at, XXXXXX. However, I moved to a new address at XXXX on the 2nd June 2017. In support of this I can provide a scanned copy of my tenancy agreement as signed upon the same date by myself and our letting agent alongside a council tax bill corresponding to the same date; Schedule (I)

    1.4. Immediately upon moving to the new address I contacted the DVLA with notification of a change of address; Schedule (N)

    1.5. In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the integrity and law-abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that;

    1.5.1 I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the 30th September 2018

    1.5.2 On 1st October I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgement; the particulars of the claim only containing “outstanding debt and damages” as reason for the claim - this is inserted into Point X.X below and (Schedule M)

    1.9.3 On XX October I have willfully submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgement and fairly present my case


    1.6. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s correct contact details at the time of the claim. They have used information that was 14 months out of date. In addition, following an initial appeal on previously disregarded parking charges; UKPP have both my email address and phone number which have not changed

    1.6.1 In furtherance to the above, the majority of correspondence directly between the Claimant and myself took place over e-mail; hence it is unacceptable not to utilise the medium when notifying of intention to raise court proceedings when there is obvious doubt as to the residence of the Defendant

    1.7. On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address that the Defendant no longer resides. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the my current residence despite having 14 months to establish an address between our vacation of residence (June 2017) and the default judgment (August 2018). This has led to a defective service and an irregular judgement. As the proceedings were not validly served, it leads to no service and thus they are not entitled to judgement and the court must set aside the claim

    1.8. I do acknowledge UKPP’s limitations in obtaining details considering there is also an ongoing case between UK Parking Patrol Ltd and the DVLA whereby the former are now banned from accessing driver information due to their conduct in obtaining and misusing driver data; this being indicative of their overall conduct as an organisation.

    1.9. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

    Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses."

    The Minister added "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That 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.” Furtherance to points raised in 1.3 above.

    1.10. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £255 from the claimant should this request be successful.





    2. Order for the original claim to be dismissed

    2.1 I am aware that the claim is for an unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the grounds for this are laid out below in further detail

    2.2 Primacy of Contract; It is denied that I the Defendant or lawful users of the vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land along with written confirmation of the allocated parking bay; Schedule (O)

    I assert that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the tenancy, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease provides the right to park a vehicle, without limitation as to ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit.

    2.3 I as the Defendant aver that the operator’s signs cannot:

    (a) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors for peaceful enjoyment of their space and

    (b) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease

    The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) (Schedule P) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 (Schedule Q). The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.


    2.4. 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.

    2.5. I 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 not the landowner of the car park in question, and has 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. Evidence of this is held within the existing tenancy agreement to lease the property, within which included the allocated parking space the vehicle where the vehicle was parked.

    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; there are no fees for parking as residents as this is factored into tenancy; see 2.2 above.

    Therefore there is no consideration from motorist to claimant.

    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.

    2.7. Alternatively, if the Claimant disagrees with the above, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least all of the following information:

    2.7.1. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge

    2.7.2. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)

    2.7.3. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)

    2.7.4. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper

    2.7.5. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter

    2.7.6. Information obtained from the County Court Business Centre does goes on to state (for which evidence will be provided upon a set-aside hearing):

    “THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT THE RATE OF 8% A YEAR FROM 31/01/2017 TO 20/07/2018 ON £176.05 AND ALSO INTEREST AT THE SAME
    RATE UP TO THE DATE OF JUDGMENT OR EARLIER PAYMENT AT A DAILY RATE OF £0.03.”

    2.7.7 However, with only one charge that could be claimed as outstanding is that of the BPA Code of Practice limit of £100. Evidence must be supplied as to how an attempt to double the recovery has been made

    2.7.8 Remembering POFA’s code also stipulates a keeper can only be pursued for the sum on the Notice to Keeper (double-recovery is not allowed)


    2.8. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

    2.9. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of a vehicle, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant


    2.10. 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 ‘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

    2.11. I further believe this Claim relating to ‘Parking Charge Notice’ issued on 31 January 2017 does not apply; as under Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom Act 2012 the Registered Keeper of the vehicle cannot be held liable where a breach of contract may have occurred by a driver of a vehicle; where the Defendant is the Registered Keeper and where said keeper is unable to identify the driver.

    2.12. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car over 20 months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

    2.13. For the Claimant to have obliged the Defendant to provide the drivers details at the time of said breach the Claimant would be required to apply for a ‘Norwich Pharmacal Order’, I am not aware of any such order being made upon the Defendant.

    2.14. Furthermore, given the time delay of approximately more than a year from the alleged breach of contract, it is unreasonable to expect the Defendant to have a record of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence.


    2.15. On the basis of assumption, without the chance to fully review the court claim made by the Claimant; it is acknowledged and accepted I made an original appeal to charges applied to my vehicle of which there were two separate PCN’s.

    2.16. Of the two PCN’s raised for equal amounts (both £100), one was dismissed. The other was upheld and I was forced to appeal through UKPP’s adjudicator partners, the alleged Independent Appeals Service.

    Disregarding the obvious conflict of interests that preside over the directorship and affiliations of the IAS, which I do not deem an adequate impartial adjudicator; there are two resounding areas of inconsistency:

    The original parking charge was issued on the premise of “No permit”. This was incorrect as the permit was present, it had simply slipped to a point of partial visibility. The adjudicator adjudged, and quote “In this case it is maintained that the Appellant’s permit was displayed in such a way that it was not capable of being read from outside the vehicle” (Schedule E)

    It was accepted that the permit was displayed, just incorrectly. The permit used was valid, as was supplied at the point of the appeal (Schedule R).


    With one charge removed for the same alleged breach of contract, there is no consistency in enforcement of their own supposed management. This indicates the intention to simply roboclaim and turn profit by offering a standalone charge to incentivise a swift payment


    2.17. In conjunction with the outstanding claim being made against me; it is common knowledge amongst a number of other tenants / leaseholder at the resident property the claim is pertaining to, that there are several cases ongoing with the same organisation, UK Parking Patrol;

    2.17.1 There are many cases wherein UK Parking Patrol have rescinded their charges on the basis a victim of their claims is a tenant and is lawfully able to park on their own land (leased or owned)

    2.17.2 One such case is that of tenant XXX XXXX; PCN Ref: XXXXX,

    XXXX was charged for failing to display their permit on their vehicle. Upon openly admitting to UKPP that he had simply “forgotten” to display it and subsequently sent through photographic evidence of their allocated permit, UKPP agreed to rescind the charge (Schedule X)

    2.17.3 This is inconsistent on the basis upon which the claimant is attempting to charge myself as the defendant; and there other exact cases like this one which can be provided on any further hearing


    2.18 On the basis of the above, 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.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Oct 18, 7:00 PM
    • 9,905 Posts
    • 10,212 Thanks
    KeithP
    You might want to consider a Draft Order.

    Maybe something like this one:

    .
    • AdoptedNortherner
    • By AdoptedNortherner 9th Oct 18, 9:58 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    AdoptedNortherner
    Hi all,

    Planning to send this off on Thursday. Any more feedback or points to raise would be invaluable as always.

    Can I ask if you feel our main reasons for dismissal are clear?

    Thank you
    • AdoptedNortherner
    • By AdoptedNortherner 12th Oct 18, 7:07 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    AdoptedNortherner
    Hi all,

    Can anyone help quickly clarify - the initial default judgement was made by the County Court Business Centre, and that is the court listed on our Registry Trust

    This is where the application should be sent off to?

    We can't assume it be dealt with by our local county court until officially transferred?
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

1,798Posts Today

7,264Users online

Martin's Twitter