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
    • Fairdooos
    • By Fairdooos 14th Jun 19, 6:43 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Fairdooos
    Claim expired CCJ to be entered
    • #1
    • 14th Jun 19, 6:43 PM
    Claim expired CCJ to be entered 14th Jun 19 at 6:43 PM
    Hi there

    it's the first time i've used the forum and i've spent an hour or two sifting! Thank you for the work you do you help so many people...you're wonderful!

    I have a case from BW legal via KBT Cornwall LTD. I was a member in a health club in a hotel. I had a permit but I still got a ticket! The County Court Claim was issued on May 3 2019. I filled out the form admitted the amount claimed and agreed an amount to pay each month. No reply. I have since had another letter saying the C.C.C has expired and if I contact them by June 16th that will halt proceedings.

    I don't want to pay the full amount and would like to know how to proceed please? Is it too late to contact the hotel and start from there?
Page 1
    • waamo
    • By waamo 14th Jun 19, 6:49 PM
    • 7,870 Posts
    • 10,716 Thanks
    waamo
    • #2
    • 14th Jun 19, 6:49 PM
    • #2
    • 14th Jun 19, 6:49 PM
    Can you tell us who this letter is from and the exact wording please?
    This space for hire.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jun 19, 11:58 PM
    • 76,465 Posts
    • 89,803 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 14th Jun 19, 11:58 PM
    • #3
    • 14th Jun 19, 11:58 PM
    Is it another Armtrac 'fluttering ticket' (flimsy permit fell off the dashboard) case?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Fairdooos
    • By Fairdooos 15th Jun 19, 7:42 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Fairdooos
    • #4
    • 15th Jun 19, 7:42 AM
    • #4
    • 15th Jun 19, 7:42 AM
    Hi there

    thanks for prompt replies :-)

    - Yes it is a case of 'flimsy permit' fell of the dashboard case @Coupon-mad

    - Here is the wording and essence of the letter (I have the claim form too)
    - FROM: BW Legal representing KBT Ltd/ t/a Armtrac


    "We wrote to you recently to advise that we have issued legal proceedings against you in the form of a County Court claim on 3 May 2019 under claim XXXXX

    This letter also advised that unless we agree a suitable repayment plan with you, or you contact us to provide us with a valid reasons for non-payment, then we would look take our client instruction and enter a CCJ against you (exact wording! I'm referring to typo)

    Then the letter states 'It's not too late' sub-heading Ending with 'Manage your account online'

    Many thanks and sunny wishes
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 15th Jun 19, 7:49 AM
    • 40,488 Posts
    • 24,533 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #5
    • 15th Jun 19, 7:49 AM
    • #5
    • 15th Jun 19, 7:49 AM
    To whom did you send the form admitting the amount owed?
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 15th Jun 19, 8:19 AM
    • 15,182 Posts
    • 15,849 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 15th Jun 19, 8:19 AM
    • #6
    • 15th Jun 19, 8:19 AM
    I am confused, is this a County Court Claim or a County Court Judgement? If the former, why on earth do you want to pay it? Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams and will fail in court.

    Why not fight it? Even if you were to lose, (unlikely in the case of a fluttering ticket|), the amount a judge would order you to pay is likely to be around £175, and I'll bet they are asking for more.

    Get your MP on board, Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

    Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

    Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.
    Last edited by The Deep; 15-06-2019 at 8:27 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 19, 12:18 PM
    • 76,465 Posts
    • 89,803 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 15th Jun 19, 12:18 PM
    • #7
    • 15th Jun 19, 12:18 PM
    I filled out the form admitted the amount claimed and agreed an amount to pay each month. No reply.
    To whom did you send the form admitting the amount owed?
    Originally posted by Quentin
    This is really important. If you admitted the claim to the court or the solicitors (wrong move) and agreed to pay it in instalments (another wrong move, sadly) you are stuffed with a CCJ for 6 years anyway, even if you keep to the payment agreement.

    Instalments re a court claim are the work of the devil as you are left with a CCJ in any case. So where did you send that form?

    NEVER agree to pay a PPC, unless you lose at a hearing and a Judge tells you to. Sadly for you that bridge has been burnt.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Fairdooos
    • By Fairdooos 15th Jun 19, 6:17 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Fairdooos
    • #8
    • 15th Jun 19, 6:17 PM
    • #8
    • 15th Jun 19, 6:17 PM
    This is a County Court Claim issued on 3 May 2019

    I sent it to armtrac if i remember rightly. I've looked at the case at moneyclaim.gov.uk and there's no sign of it. They haven't received it at bw legal either!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 19, 6:37 PM
    • 76,465 Posts
    • 89,803 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 15th Jun 19, 6:37 PM
    • #9
    • 15th Jun 19, 6:37 PM
    You had a COURT CLAIM and ignored it, and didn't reply to the COURT?

    You never even registered on MCOL using the password the court claim gave you (Bottom right)? Or, did you register and acknowledge the claim? WHEN?

    You do not reply to a claim form by sending something random to the Claimant!

    What's the date of the claim? 3rd May?

    Get a defence in by email this weekend without fail, and hope MCOL updates and that you have no already got a default CCJ.

    I assume you took my hint and searched the forum for Armtrac fluttering ticket defence.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th Jun 19, 6:47 PM
    • 17,871 Posts
    • 21,768 Thanks
    KeithP
    Get a defence in by email this weekend without fail, and hope MCOL updates and that you have no already got a default CCJ.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    OP, if you are going to do this, the following information will be useful...

    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. Just put the claim number and the words Urgent Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
    8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    .
    • Fairdooos
    • By Fairdooos 15th Jun 19, 9:13 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Fairdooos
    I'm wasting time i need more help please. I don't know which defence example to use (fluttering ticket defense). I've been searching and searching. The example i found was deemed as too long

    Thnx
    • waamo
    • By waamo 15th Jun 19, 9:33 PM
    • 7,870 Posts
    • 10,716 Thanks
    waamo
    There is a decent one in this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6000919&highlight=armtrac+flutter ing+ticket+defence
    This space for hire.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 19, 11:21 PM
    • 76,465 Posts
    • 89,803 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Except the paragraph numbering is haywire!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 16th Jun 19, 8:55 AM
    • 40,488 Posts
    • 24,533 Thanks
    Quentin
    In your OP you mention a letter telling you that the "CCC has expired"

    Where did that come from? (Court or Claimant)
    • Fairdooos
    • By Fairdooos 16th Jun 19, 10:30 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Fairdooos
    Hi Quentin
    It came from Claimant
    Last edited by Fairdooos; 16-06-2019 at 4:58 PM.
    • Fairdooos
    • By Fairdooos 16th Jun 19, 3:34 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Fairdooos
    My deadline is tonight... Thanks everyone thanks alot. I'm going to show my appreciation by making a donation to a fund of somekind
    Last edited by Fairdooos; 16-06-2019 at 4:57 PM. Reason: Im deleting my email address
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 16th Jun 19, 3:43 PM
    • 40,488 Posts
    • 24,533 Thanks
    Quentin
    Take down your email address

    Apart from against MSE ruled it's Never a good idea to put your email up on a public forum!
    • Fairdooos
    • By Fairdooos 16th Jun 19, 4:20 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Fairdooos
    Preliminary Matters
    1.The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5.

    1.1 The claim particulars fail to specify how the terms of parking were breached and fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 by not including a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to parking charges incurred with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence; are not clear and concise as is required by CPR Part 16.4 1(a).

    1.2 The Claimant and their solicitor are known to be a serial litigants and issuer of speculative claims, using “template” particulars of claim, with no due diligence. Research indicated they are the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

    1.3 1.1 In C3GF84Y2 (Mason, Plymouth County Court) [2016] the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    1.4 On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failed to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the claim was struck out.

    1.5 There are other similar examples which could be produced.

    *2 The Defendant appealed the postal Parking Charge Notice on the 03/12/2017 explaining what had happened and included a copy of the ticket displayed on the day providing the Claimant with clear evidence that the defendant acted in good faith and made all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and condition (“T&C”) - as far as they were understood.

    2.1 This was an opportunity for the Claimant to act reasonably and cancel the charge.

    2.2 The appeal was rejected on the 14/12/2017 and the Defendant subsequently appealed to the Independent Adjudicator on 15/12/2017 which was also dismissed.*

    3 The Defendant requests the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action and disregard of pre-court protocol.

    3.1 Alternatively, the Defendant asks that court makes an order requiring the Claimant to file compliant Particulars, to include at least the following;
    a) An explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
    b) A copy of any contract it is alleged was entered into and how (e.g. copies of signage)
    c) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with documents they rely on in having standing to bring this claim
    d) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed and calculated
    e) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

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

    Background
    4 The Defendant is the authorised registered keeper and the driver in question at the time of the alleged incident.

    5 The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

    5.1 The Defendant acquired a week long permit from the reception of the Hotel. The permit was made of very flimsy paper, and was, to the full knowledge of the Defendant at the time, in place the right way up when the car was locked and left parked. The Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the ticket moved out of sight or why, but made all reasonable endeavours, and complied by conduct.

    5.2 The Defendant cannot be responsible for the possibility that:
    a) A gust of wind may have later moved the flimsy paper from sight, despite the windows & doors being locked.
    b) The employee of the Claimant may have caused the permit to move from sight, perhaps accidentally when leaning across the car or pushing between vehicles. No suggestion of foul play is intended.
    c) A passer-by may have leaned on the car, when squeezing between the small bays to get to their own vehicle.

    5.3 None of the above scenarios are within a driver's control (the Defendant was by that time, absent from the location) and it is evident that someone else – or a factor outside anyone's control – was to blame. This appears to have been a case of casus fortuitus "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident", which is a doctrine that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties renders the contract frustrated.

    5.4 Notwithstanding the above, the flimsiness of the ticket certainly played its part, and that is within the control of the Claimant, who must be well aware of the problem, which has become known as ''fluttering tickets''. Because they profit from drivers' misfortune caused by their own tickets' inability to withstand British weather, it is averred that this Claimant wilfully failed to address this issue (e.g. by adding sticky backing to the ticket, allowing it to be fixed in place). Several similar court cases have been previously dismissed on the basis that it is deemed by the judge to be the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets (e.g. C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H. 14/11/2016 Port Talbot)

    5.5 The parking permit was aquired telling the vehicle registration number to the Hotel receptionist . Therefore the Claimant had a full record of full parking payment having been made for the parked vehicle without the ticket being visible on the dashboard.!

    5.6 The Court is invited to consider the fairness of the position in this case, giving due consideration to the flimsiness of the piece of paper provided, which appears to cause significant imbalance in the rights of a consumer, to their detriment, and the Defendant relies on Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act.

    Limited contract
    6 The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract to pay £100 or any sum at all. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read and it is not believed that such terms were proclaimed with the tariffs at the machine. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community (of which the Claimant is a member), clearly obliges the Claimant to display legible signs in appropriate locations.

    Locus standi
    7 The Claimant has failed to establish its legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder and therefore would have no locus standi to bring this case per Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 1B &S 393, as confirmed by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd.

    7.1 Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 showed that the Claimant does not have a wider legitimate interest extending beyond the prospect of damages, as their interest is only limited to the recovery of compensation for the alleged breach of contract, and no commercial interest has engaged as to the control of parking as the Defendant had paid for a licence to park.

    No advertising consent for signage
    8 The Claimant is not entitled to rely on an illegal or immoral act in order to profit from it, pursuant to the doctrine ex dolo malo non oritur actio. In this matter, the Claimant does not have advertisement consent in relation to its parking signage on the land in question (which are classed as “advertisements” under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended). This is a criminal offence under Regulation 30 of those Regulations. Accordingly, as a matter of public policy and pursuant to the doctrine, the Claimant should not be allowed to found a cause of action on unlawful signage. The rationale for this is set out in the case of Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 and was reaffirmed in RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015). The Defendant also relies on Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507 and ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 1338.

    8.1 In addition, the Claimant is in breach of various statutory and regulatory provisions set out in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (Regulation 3 – a breach of which is an offence under Regulation 5), the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sections 62 and 68 and Schedule 2) and the Consumer Contract (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (Regulation 13). Again, the court should not lend its aid to the Claimant in founding a claim based on its unlawful and/or immoral conduct.

    Claimant is seeking a penalty and inflated costs
    9 The Claimant seeks £160 which is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty, and therefore unenforceable particularly because the Defendant has shown a valid ticket was purchased and the Claimant has suffered no loss, and because any breach of contract (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied) was de minimis.

    9.1 The Claimant is under a duty to mitigate its loss. It failed to do so by ignoring the information available from the Hotel that would have enabled it to establish that the Defendant had applied for a full week’s parking.

    9.2 £60 of the £160 ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied) the Claimant has untruthfully presented as contractual charges, which amounts to double charging, which the PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 specifically disallows. Any term allowing for the Claimant to pursue such additional charges must be void for uncertainty. In any event, such charges must be covered by the addition of the discounted element of the charge after a driver has failed to pay within 14 days (£40).

    9.3 The Claimant has claimed a £50 legal representative’s cost on the claim form, despite being well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid and that due to the sparse particulars the £50 claimed for filing the claim has not been incurred either. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery as a way to inflate the value of the claim. In the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred.

    9.4 The £50 solicitor cost was disputed in the test case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the £50. His award was; “JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR £85 PLUS ISSUE COSTS”.. The £50 was also struck out by DJ Sparrow on 19 August 2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S, claim number B9FC508F.

    9.5 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever

    10 The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim for the above grounds.!


    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
    • Fairdooos
    • By Fairdooos 16th Jun 19, 4:23 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Fairdooos
    Do I send anything to the MCOL at all?
    • Fairdooos
    • By Fairdooos 16th Jun 19, 4:55 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Fairdooos
    .thanks
    .thanks alot
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

226Posts Today

3,349Users online

Martin's Twitter