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
    • Dergolem
    • By Dergolem 13th Jan 20, 7:13 PM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Dergolem
    Questions on Setting Aside CCJ Judgement
    • #1
    • 13th Jan 20, 7:13 PM
    Questions on Setting Aside CCJ Judgement 13th Jan 20 at 7:13 PM
    Hi everyone,

    I've read through the Newbies thread and I've got a few questions. Here's the situation:

    My partner recently received a Claim Form in the post. It was dated before Christmas but didn't arrive until over three weeks after that date. She then received a Judgement in Default letter a few days later. I was planning to help her defend the claim but by the time the Claim Form arrived the 14 day period had passed and she was unable to send an Acknowledgement of Service.

    Do you think this makes a good case for having the judgement set aside, given that she wasn't given chance to defend herself? Most of the similar cases I've read about involve a Claim Form being sent to the wrong address which isn't the case here. She received previous correspondence regarding the parking fine but there's nothing she could do without the Claim Form, which didn't arrive until it was too late. And it was over the Christmas period so problems with the post are quite commonplace. I think she's eligible for having the application fees waved so it makes sense to apply anyway but any advice you can give would be much appreciated.

    I understand she should include a draft of the defence along with the application, to show the judge she has a good case. The incident took place in a private car park where the ticket machine was broken. My partner tried to purchase a ticket but was unable to. Is this a good line of defence or should I focus on some of the other defences I've seen examples of on this forum? My partner initially tried to appeal via the parking company's website by mentioning the broken machine, which means she probably admitted to being the driver, not just the keeper. Is that a big problem?

    Thanks very much for your help. Once I've got the answer to these questions I'll put together a draft application to have the judgement set aside and post it in this thread.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 13th Jan 20, 7:53 PM
    • 26,776 Posts
    • 35,033 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 13th Jan 20, 7:53 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Jan 20, 7:53 PM
    AFAIK if you (she) can prove it wasnt delivered until 3 weeks after it was sent , when it should have been 2 days , (sent by the CCBC so strange it took so long) then if you pay the £255 set aside fee I believe a judge may reset it, but she might not get the £255 back

    read post #2 of the newbies faq sticky thread where set asides are dealt with

    sometimes being an admitted driver and being honest, plus a first person witness to events on the day , is an advantage , so can be better than trying to hide behind POFA (if the PPC complied with POFA then no point arguing it as keeper anyway)
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • BrownTrout
    • By BrownTrout 13th Jan 20, 8:56 PM
    • 972 Posts
    • 1,508 Thanks
    BrownTrout
    • #3
    • 13th Jan 20, 8:56 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Jan 20, 8:56 PM
    IMO you are wasting your time, unless you get fee examption you wont get that fee back and unless its a large claim i would just pay it
    • henrik777
    • By henrik777 13th Jan 20, 9:10 PM
    • 2,344 Posts
    • 28,190 Thanks
    henrik777
    • #4
    • 13th Jan 20, 9:10 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Jan 20, 9:10 PM
    Do you think this makes a good case for having the judgement set aside, given that she wasn't given chance to defend herself?
    Yes.

    I think she's eligible for having the application fees waved so it makes sense to apply anyway but any advice you can give would be much appreciated.
    It is definitely worth it if fee exempt.

    My partner tried to purchase a ticket but was unable to. Is this a good line of defence or should I focus on some of the other defences I've seen examples of on this forum?
    I'd include it but be prepared for a judge to say she should've then left.

    Is that a big problem?
    For keeper liability probably. For other defences such as broken machine, abuse of process etc not at all.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jan 20, 3:21 AM
    • 80,692 Posts
    • 95,221 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 14th Jan 20, 3:21 AM
    • #5
    • 14th Jan 20, 3:21 AM
    IMO you are wasting your time, unless you get fee examption you wont get that fee back...
    Originally posted by BrownTrout
    Seems they do! No-brainer then, to get it set aside.

    I wonder if any other CCBC Claims were held up like this? Not heard of any.
    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
    • Dergolem
    • By Dergolem 15th Jan 20, 8:52 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Dergolem
    • #6
    • 15th Jan 20, 8:52 PM
    • #6
    • 15th Jan 20, 8:52 PM
    Hi again everyone. I've put together a draft statement to accompany my application, complete with an outline of my defence that was mostly taken from an example I found online. I took out a paragraph differentiating the case from Beavis because that was mentioned on the 'irrelevant defences' thread. What do you think? Any advice much appreciated.

    I am xxxx and I am the Defendant in this matter.
    This my supporting Statement in support of my application dated xx/01//2020 to:
    • Set aside the Default Judgement dated December 2019 as it was not properly served;
    • Order for the original claim to be dismissed

    1. Default Judgement
    1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in December 2019. However, the claim form was not served to me in the legally required time period. I was unaware of the claim against me until December 30th when I received a claim form dated December 6th. The claim form was therefore served to me 24 days later than legally required.

    1.2. I intended to defend the claim but by the time the claim form was served to me the 14 day period in which to acknowledge service had expired. I was therefore unable to acknowledge service and defend the claim.

    1.3 On January 2nd I received notice of a County Court Judgement in default. I believe the claimant has behaved wrongfully by not giving me sufficient notice of their claim.

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



    2. Order for the original claim to be dismissed
    2.1. I am aware that the claim is for an unpaid Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the grounds for this are laid out below in in further detail, and in summary are:
    • The ticket machine wasn’t in operation
    • Unclear, ambiguous, inadequate and lack of International Parking Community (IPC) compliant signage
    • No contractual agreement with the driver

    2.2 On the day of the incident the defendant used the car park and attempted to purchase a parking ticket. When the defendant attempted to pay in cash the ticket machine wouldn’t accept any coins, therefore they were unable to purchase a parking ticket.

    2.3. The signage on and around the site did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The claimant is a member of the BPA, whose requirements they did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

    The signage is inadequate in terms of the following:

    - Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions
    - Illegible text due to font size, density, colour and complexity


    2.4. Photographs of the defendants vehicle entering and exiting the car park does not constitute a proven contravention of the parking conditions. No ticket was placed on the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that a valid ticket was not on display.


    2.5. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to HX Car Park Management Ltd.

    a) HX Car Park Management Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land
    b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

    2.6. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Claimant claims a sum of £261.50 as the amount claimed (for which liability is denied) which includes £97 for unspecified costs. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred.

    2.7. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

    2.8. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

    Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.
    I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence, (date I intend to send) are true.


    Signed
    • BrownTrout
    • By BrownTrout 15th Jan 20, 9:00 PM
    • 972 Posts
    • 1,508 Thanks
    BrownTrout
    • #7
    • 15th Jan 20, 9:00 PM
    • #7
    • 15th Jan 20, 9:00 PM
    Seems they do! No-brainer then, to get it set aside.

    I wonder if any other CCBC Claims were held up like this? Not heard of any.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    No its rather unusual but with fee exemption very very little to be lost, although what exemption she gets is only found out on application
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

96Posts Today

1,551Users online

Martin's Twitter