Tweet
Recently completed credit check and horrified to leaven that I have a CCJ that was granted in Jan 19 following an alleged unpaid PCN from Parking Eye (ANPR).
The offence was reportedly committed back in Jan 18. I have checked my work diary and was confused about this as I have an appointment suggesting I was not at the car park on this Date. I never received any correspondence with regards to the PCN nor did I receive any Claim Form in respect of the hearing for the CCJ.
I should explain at the time of the offence I had lived at my current property for 2 1/2 years. I have come to learn that whilst I did change my address on my licence and of course registered with a number of utility providers and council tax, I overlooked changing the address on my V5 and had never changed this from my parents address prior to moving to my current accommodation because I was in temporary university accommodation (September 13-July 15).
I declared the vehicle in question as SORN in July 18 and the v5 was updated in August 18 after I sold the vehicle. Despite these changes. With all of the above in mind I sent N244 application, witness statement and draft order and have a hearing on Thursday.
My witness statement is as follows:
IN THE Xxxxxx COURT
Claim No. Xxxxx
BETWEEN:
ParkingEye Ltd
Claimant
-- and --
Xxxxxx
Defendant
_____________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
______________________________________
I am Xxxxxx and I am the Defendant in this matter.
This my Witness Statement in support of my application dated 14th May 2019 to:
•
Set aside the Default Judgement dated 8th January 2019 as it was not properly served at my current address.
•
Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;
•
Order for the original claim to be dismissed.
1. Default Judgement
1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in January 2019. However, the Claim Form was not served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until 10th May 2019 after a credit check was completed in respect of a housing application I had made.
1.2. Though I regularly monitor my credit, which has always been excellent, the Default Judgement against me was not visible on the routine reports obtained prior to this credit check being completed. I understand that the Claim Form was served at xxxxxxxx, which I learned after contacting Northampton County Court Business Centre on 13th May 2019 had been obtained by the Claimant from a credit reference agency as new details for the registered keeper upon receiving no response from the Defendant. However, I have never resided at an address by this name. Whilst I have resided in similarly named university accommodation at Xxxxx, this was from September 2013 until July 2015. As this was temporary university accommodation, after completing my degree, I rented a room from a colleague at Xxxxxx until October 2015 before moving to my current address.
1.3. In support of the above statements, I am able to provide a copy of the credit report that I obtained on the 10th May 2019 after being advised to undertake a credit check with the same reference agency that had been used by the letting agent. Not only does this show my previous positive credit behaviour, but also, clearly evidences that I have been linked with my current address for a number of years. In addition, I am also able to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement for my current address as well as confirmation from Ryedale District Council showing that my details were provided to them prior to the “Parking Charge Notice” issued on the 23rd January 2018 for the purposes of paying council tax. I am also able to submit to the Court a copy of my driver’s licence and bank statements that demonstrate my previous efforts in making my whereabouts identifiable for companies such as the Claimant.
1.4. Prior to making this application to Court, I reached out to the Citizens Advice Bureau who informed me of the likelihood that the Claimant obtained my address from the DVLA, however, it was only during this conversation that I learned the DVLA will have provided the address listed on the V5 document, which was Xxxxxxx Regrettably, this address had not been updated both because before moving to my current address I had resided in temporary accommodation and the address on my V5 was that of my Mother’s, which I returned to between semesters, and because when my Mother moved out of this address in 2016 I updated my address with the DVLA as shown on my driver’s licence, however, had not understood the need to update my V5 in addition to this. Despite this oversight, the vehicle in question was declared SORN in July 2018 before being sold in August 2018 at which time the registered keeper of the vehicle was changed. I submit to this Court that sufficient time had passed between the parking charge being issued and the Default Judgement being made that due diligence ought to have been taken by the Claimant to obtain correct contact information and provide documentation, which would have made it possible for me to challenge the Claimant’s claim.
1.5. During my contact with Northampton County Court Business Centre on the 13th May 2019 I learned that no evidence is currently held to support the claims made by the Claimant. Whilst it is alleged that the vehicle, which I was the registered keeper for was captured by an ANPR system entering and leaving the sight without a valid parking ticket where there are reportedly signs at the entrance and throughout the car park forbidding this, no proof has been provided to verify this nor has any evidence that the vehicle was at any time parked on the private land suggested. It is not known whether the Claimant sent a Notice to Keeper or indeed whether, if this was sent, it was done so within statutory timescales or contained images captured and whether these images show who was driving the vehicle. As the details held by the Court do not further enlighten the Defendant to this, I do not have proof of the incident the Claimant alleges has taken place and this means that I have been unable to appeal matters before or during previous Court proceedings.
1.6. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s current and correct contact details. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country. I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim. Considering all of the the above information 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, which will allow the opportunity for the Claimant to share the evidence that they hold and the Defendant the opportunity to make informed decisions and statements to the Court in their defence.
2. Claimant to reimburse Defendant
2.1. As the Claimant did not provide the correct address to the Court, the claim has not been brought to the attention of the Defendant before or after proceedings. This has resulted in an unexpected Default Judgement that has surpassed the 30 day period where, if the Defendant had been aware and paid the outstanding balance, the judgement would not have been fixed to the Defendant’s credit report. This means that the Defendant has had to pay the sum of £255 for this matter to be placed before the Court again for consideration, and therefore, it is respectfully requested that an Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant a reimbursement for the set aside fee is made.
3. Order dismissing the Claim
3.1. I further believe that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the Claimant is a Private Parking Company, which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” that the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist. 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 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 have come into force.
3.2. The Claimant states that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, and therefore, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant would have needed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant has not provided such evidence and further submit that the Claimant is publicly well known for not including ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ wording on the “Parking Charge Notices” they issue, and therefore, cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.
3.3. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the Default Judgement, which has been made on the basis of an alleged parking charge that happened in January 2018, I submit the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.
3.4. I further submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:
3.4.1. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is unlikely to be the landowner of the car park in question, and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able sue for any damages or trespass.
3.4.2. No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.
3.4.3. Claimed charge is an Unenforceable Penalty: I further submit that the Parking Charge that the Claimant claimed, given it is not based on any loss suffered due to the alleged breach, is nothing but an unenforceable penalty.
3.4.4. No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to ParkingEye Ltd.
3.5. 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.
3.6. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of the vehicle, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
Full name:
Dated: 14.05.19
Signed:
I requested in my N244 application that all evidence is shared with Defendant so a draft defence can be prepared for the Court. Parking Eye have sent an email advising that they will not be attending the hearing.
Their email is as follows:
They have provided a response which is very long winded but in essence they have stated that they have not breached CPR and that I had not kept my V5 up to date and they had done everything they could and had served 6 letter to 2 separate addresses after checking my latest address with a credit reference agency (it is this check that resulted in them obtaining the similarly named university accommodation I was staying at well some years before the alleged offence took place. They have talked a lot about Beavis. I need to brush myself up more with this as I understand the need to provide a defence for the default to be set aside and part of doing so is identifying how this case is different.
I feel my primary defence is that 1) I have never received any documentation with regards to the PCN/court proceeding so could not defend and 2) despite asking for all evidence to be shared my parking Eye including photos of the vehicle at the car park and proof that a valid p&d ticket was not displayed, they have just provided copies of the signs that they state are at the car park, however, the terms and cons of these images are illegible and I dispute that, as the defendant in this case, that any contract was made.
At the hearing today (25.07.19)
I was in the room for two minutes. The Judge did not seem happy that PE had not attended.
The Judge commented that the Claim Form appeared to have been served at an incorrect address, and therefore, he granted the set aside and the reimbursement of £255.
I asked the Judge whether he wished to see this and he told me that he did not need to at this time if this followed a similar scope to the witness statement already provided. I confirmed this to be the case and he reminded me that within the draft order I had completed I had stated that I would submit my defence no later than 14 days than after the set aside is granted.
I was hoping to clarify what happens now? Does this mean the CCJ has gone? If so, will it be reinstated if I do not put together a good enough defence? Will the Court send me the Order? What do I need to do to have the CCJ removed from my credit file and are there timescales around this? How do I recover the £255 reimbursent from PE?
I also wanted to ask for some advice around my defence - does anyone know enough to help me with some of the legalities I am trying to argue? I thought it would be helpful to share PE's response for today's hearing despite their absence but it's very long winded... is there a way to attach this as a document rather than copying and pasting? My defence is as follows (please remember I wrote this all last night - I know there are spelling mistakes, paragraph numbering is wrong etc):
How much detail is needed in a defence and can anyone support me in making this more concise? I am aware that the defence needs to be more concise, but I have kind of merged my witness statement and some expansions together. I will submit all my supporting evidence with my defence.
Thanks so much!
The offence was reportedly committed back in Jan 18. I have checked my work diary and was confused about this as I have an appointment suggesting I was not at the car park on this Date. I never received any correspondence with regards to the PCN nor did I receive any Claim Form in respect of the hearing for the CCJ.
I should explain at the time of the offence I had lived at my current property for 2 1/2 years. I have come to learn that whilst I did change my address on my licence and of course registered with a number of utility providers and council tax, I overlooked changing the address on my V5 and had never changed this from my parents address prior to moving to my current accommodation because I was in temporary university accommodation (September 13-July 15).
I declared the vehicle in question as SORN in July 18 and the v5 was updated in August 18 after I sold the vehicle. Despite these changes. With all of the above in mind I sent N244 application, witness statement and draft order and have a hearing on Thursday.
My witness statement is as follows:
IN THE Xxxxxx COURT
Claim No. Xxxxx
BETWEEN:
ParkingEye Ltd
Claimant
-- and --
Xxxxxx
Defendant
_____________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
______________________________________
I am Xxxxxx and I am the Defendant in this matter.
This my Witness Statement in support of my application dated 14th May 2019 to:
•
Set aside the Default Judgement dated 8th January 2019 as it was not properly served at my current address.
•
Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;
•
Order for the original claim to be dismissed.
1. Default Judgement
1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in January 2019. However, the Claim Form was not served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until 10th May 2019 after a credit check was completed in respect of a housing application I had made.
1.2. Though I regularly monitor my credit, which has always been excellent, the Default Judgement against me was not visible on the routine reports obtained prior to this credit check being completed. I understand that the Claim Form was served at xxxxxxxx, which I learned after contacting Northampton County Court Business Centre on 13th May 2019 had been obtained by the Claimant from a credit reference agency as new details for the registered keeper upon receiving no response from the Defendant. However, I have never resided at an address by this name. Whilst I have resided in similarly named university accommodation at Xxxxx, this was from September 2013 until July 2015. As this was temporary university accommodation, after completing my degree, I rented a room from a colleague at Xxxxxx until October 2015 before moving to my current address.
1.3. In support of the above statements, I am able to provide a copy of the credit report that I obtained on the 10th May 2019 after being advised to undertake a credit check with the same reference agency that had been used by the letting agent. Not only does this show my previous positive credit behaviour, but also, clearly evidences that I have been linked with my current address for a number of years. In addition, I am also able to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement for my current address as well as confirmation from Ryedale District Council showing that my details were provided to them prior to the “Parking Charge Notice” issued on the 23rd January 2018 for the purposes of paying council tax. I am also able to submit to the Court a copy of my driver’s licence and bank statements that demonstrate my previous efforts in making my whereabouts identifiable for companies such as the Claimant.
1.4. Prior to making this application to Court, I reached out to the Citizens Advice Bureau who informed me of the likelihood that the Claimant obtained my address from the DVLA, however, it was only during this conversation that I learned the DVLA will have provided the address listed on the V5 document, which was Xxxxxxx Regrettably, this address had not been updated both because before moving to my current address I had resided in temporary accommodation and the address on my V5 was that of my Mother’s, which I returned to between semesters, and because when my Mother moved out of this address in 2016 I updated my address with the DVLA as shown on my driver’s licence, however, had not understood the need to update my V5 in addition to this. Despite this oversight, the vehicle in question was declared SORN in July 2018 before being sold in August 2018 at which time the registered keeper of the vehicle was changed. I submit to this Court that sufficient time had passed between the parking charge being issued and the Default Judgement being made that due diligence ought to have been taken by the Claimant to obtain correct contact information and provide documentation, which would have made it possible for me to challenge the Claimant’s claim.
1.5. During my contact with Northampton County Court Business Centre on the 13th May 2019 I learned that no evidence is currently held to support the claims made by the Claimant. Whilst it is alleged that the vehicle, which I was the registered keeper for was captured by an ANPR system entering and leaving the sight without a valid parking ticket where there are reportedly signs at the entrance and throughout the car park forbidding this, no proof has been provided to verify this nor has any evidence that the vehicle was at any time parked on the private land suggested. It is not known whether the Claimant sent a Notice to Keeper or indeed whether, if this was sent, it was done so within statutory timescales or contained images captured and whether these images show who was driving the vehicle. As the details held by the Court do not further enlighten the Defendant to this, I do not have proof of the incident the Claimant alleges has taken place and this means that I have been unable to appeal matters before or during previous Court proceedings.
1.6. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s current and correct contact details. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country. I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim. Considering all of the the above information 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, which will allow the opportunity for the Claimant to share the evidence that they hold and the Defendant the opportunity to make informed decisions and statements to the Court in their defence.
2. Claimant to reimburse Defendant
2.1. As the Claimant did not provide the correct address to the Court, the claim has not been brought to the attention of the Defendant before or after proceedings. This has resulted in an unexpected Default Judgement that has surpassed the 30 day period where, if the Defendant had been aware and paid the outstanding balance, the judgement would not have been fixed to the Defendant’s credit report. This means that the Defendant has had to pay the sum of £255 for this matter to be placed before the Court again for consideration, and therefore, it is respectfully requested that an Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant a reimbursement for the set aside fee is made.
3. Order dismissing the Claim
3.1. I further believe that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the Claimant is a Private Parking Company, which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” that the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist. 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 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 have come into force.
3.2. The Claimant states that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, and therefore, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant would have needed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant has not provided such evidence and further submit that the Claimant is publicly well known for not including ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ wording on the “Parking Charge Notices” they issue, and therefore, cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.
3.3. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the Default Judgement, which has been made on the basis of an alleged parking charge that happened in January 2018, I submit the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.
3.4. I further submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:
3.4.1. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is unlikely to be the landowner of the car park in question, and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able sue for any damages or trespass.
3.4.2. No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.
3.4.3. Claimed charge is an Unenforceable Penalty: I further submit that the Parking Charge that the Claimant claimed, given it is not based on any loss suffered due to the alleged breach, is nothing but an unenforceable penalty.
3.4.4. No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to ParkingEye Ltd.
3.5. 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.
3.6. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of the vehicle, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
Full name:
Dated: 14.05.19
Signed:
Their email is as follows:
We have received the court’s directions in respect of the Defendant’s application to set aside judgment and we note that the application has been listed for hearing as detailed above. We ask the court to note that we oppose this application and we can confirm that we have enclosed our written submissions for the court’s consideration.
Please note that we are happy for this hearing to take place in our absence, as our attendance at this short hearing would incur further costs which we believe would be disproportionate to the amount of the claim. Alternatively, we would be required to arrange for representation, which would pose similar difficulties. We wish to stress that we mean no disrespect to the Court and we request that the Court considers the enclosed documentation in respect of the application filed.
Finally, we wish to confirm that we are seeking that no order be made as to costs. In this regard, we respectfully remind the Court of its duty to consider the Overriding Objective, as set out in Civil Procedure Rules. We wish to highlight CPR 1.1(2)(b), (c) & (f), which place a duty upon the Court to deal with claims in a proportionate manner, including as to costs, and to ensure compliance and enforcement of the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions.
Yours faithfully,
Please note that we are happy for this hearing to take place in our absence, as our attendance at this short hearing would incur further costs which we believe would be disproportionate to the amount of the claim. Alternatively, we would be required to arrange for representation, which would pose similar difficulties. We wish to stress that we mean no disrespect to the Court and we request that the Court considers the enclosed documentation in respect of the application filed.
Finally, we wish to confirm that we are seeking that no order be made as to costs. In this regard, we respectfully remind the Court of its duty to consider the Overriding Objective, as set out in Civil Procedure Rules. We wish to highlight CPR 1.1(2)(b), (c) & (f), which place a duty upon the Court to deal with claims in a proportionate manner, including as to costs, and to ensure compliance and enforcement of the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions.
Yours faithfully,
They have provided a response which is very long winded but in essence they have stated that they have not breached CPR and that I had not kept my V5 up to date and they had done everything they could and had served 6 letter to 2 separate addresses after checking my latest address with a credit reference agency (it is this check that resulted in them obtaining the similarly named university accommodation I was staying at well some years before the alleged offence took place. They have talked a lot about Beavis. I need to brush myself up more with this as I understand the need to provide a defence for the default to be set aside and part of doing so is identifying how this case is different.
I feel my primary defence is that 1) I have never received any documentation with regards to the PCN/court proceeding so could not defend and 2) despite asking for all evidence to be shared my parking Eye including photos of the vehicle at the car park and proof that a valid p&d ticket was not displayed, they have just provided copies of the signs that they state are at the car park, however, the terms and cons of these images are illegible and I dispute that, as the defendant in this case, that any contract was made.
At the hearing today (25.07.19)
I was in the room for two minutes. The Judge did not seem happy that PE had not attended.
The Judge commented that the Claim Form appeared to have been served at an incorrect address, and therefore, he granted the set aside and the reimbursement of £255.
I asked the Judge whether he wished to see this and he told me that he did not need to at this time if this followed a similar scope to the witness statement already provided. I confirmed this to be the case and he reminded me that within the draft order I had completed I had stated that I would submit my defence no later than 14 days than after the set aside is granted.
I was hoping to clarify what happens now? Does this mean the CCJ has gone? If so, will it be reinstated if I do not put together a good enough defence? Will the Court send me the Order? What do I need to do to have the CCJ removed from my credit file and are there timescales around this? How do I recover the £255 reimbursent from PE?
I also wanted to ask for some advice around my defence - does anyone know enough to help me with some of the legalities I am trying to argue? I thought it would be helpful to share PE's response for today's hearing despite their absence but it's very long winded... is there a way to attach this as a document rather than copying and pasting? My defence is as follows (please remember I wrote this all last night - I know there are spelling mistakes, paragraph numbering is wrong etc):
IN THE XXXXX COUNTY COURT
Claim No. XXXXXXX
BETWEEN:!
ParkingEye Ltd Claimant!
-- and --!
XXXXXX Defendant
_____________________________________
DEFENCE
______________________________________
I am XXXXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter.
This my Defence in support of my application dated 14th May 2019 to:
· Order for the original claim to be dismissed.
· The Default Judgement dated 8th January 2019 is set aside as it was not properly served at the Defendant's current address;
· The Claimant does pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;
1. 3.Dismissal of original claim
Incorrect address used for correspondence
1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in January 2019. When I contacted Northampton Couty Court on the 13th May 2019 I was informed that the alleged “Parking Charge Notice” was issued on the 23rd January 2018, however, I note on the Claimant’s submissions for the scheduled hearing on the 25th July 2019 it states that the date of the parking event occurred on the 17th January 2018. Regardless, the claim form was not served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until 10th May 2019 after a credit check was completed in respect of a housing application I had made.
1.2. Though I regularly monitor my credit, which has always been excellent, the Default Judgement against me was not visible on the routine reports obtained prior to this credit check being completed. I understand that this Claim was served at XXXXXX, which I learned after contacting Northampton County Court Business Centre on 13th May 2019 had been obtained by the Claimant from a credit reference agency as new details for the registered keeper upon receiving no response from the Defendant. However, I have never resided at an address by this name. Whilst I have resided in similarly named university accommodation at XXXXX, this was from September 2013 until July 2015. As this was temporary university accommodation, after completing my degree, I rented a room from a colleague at XXXXXX until October 2015 before moving to my current address.
1.3. In support of the above statements, I am able to provide a copy of the credit report that I obtained on the 10th May 2019 after being advised to undertake a credit check with the same reference agency that had been used by the letting agent. Not only does this show my previous positive credit behaviour, but also, clearly evidences that I have been linked with my current address for a number of years. In addition, I have a copy of the tenancy agreement for my current address as well as confirmation from XXXXX Council showing that my details were provided to them prior to the parking charge issued for the purposes of paying council tax. I am also able to submit to the Court a copy of my driver’s licence and bank statements that demonstrate my previous efforts in making my whereabouts identifiable for companies such as the Claimant.
1.4. Prior to making this application to Court, I reached out to the Citizens Advice Bureau who informed me of the likelihood that the Claimant obtained my address from the DVLA, however, it was only during this conversation that I learned the DVLA will have provided the address listed on the V5 document, which was XXXXX. Regrettably, this address had not been updated both because before moving to my current address I had resided in temporary accommodation and the address on my V5 was that of my Mother’s, which I returned to between semesters, and because when my Mother moved out of this address in 2016 I updated my address with the DVLA as shown on my driver’s licence, however, had not understood the need to update my V5 in addition to this. Despite this oversight, the vehicle in question was declared SORN in July 2018 before being sold in August 2018 at which time the Registered Keeper of the vehicle was changed. I submit to this Court that sufficient time had passed between the parking charge being issued and the Default Judgement being made that due diligence ought to have been taken by the Claimant to obtain correct contact information and provide documentation, which would have made it possible for me to challenge the Claimant’s claim before or after initial Court proceedings.
1.5. During my contact with Northampton County Court Business Centre on the 13th May 2019 I learned that no evidence is currently held to support the claims made by the Claimant. Whilst it is alleged that the vehicle, which I was the registered keeper for was captured by an ANPR system entering and leaving the sight without a valid parking ticket, no proof has been provided to verify this nor has any evidence that the vehicle was at any time parked on the private land suggested. No additional evidence has been submitted by the Claimant in preparation for the hearing on the 25th July 2019 as to whether the Claimant sent a Notice to Keeper or indeed whether, if this was sent, it was done so within statutory timescales or contained images captured and whether these images show who was driving the vehicle, whether the vehicle was parked and/or whether a valid ticket was or was not purchased. As the details held by the Court and further submission from the Claimant do not further enlighten the Defendant to this, I do not have proof of the incident the Claimant alleges has taken place on either the 17th January 2018 nor the 23rd January 2018 and this means that I have been unable to appeal matters before, during or following previous Court proceedings.
1.6. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s current and correct contact details. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results in an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country. I submit that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim. It is alleged that the parking event date took place in January 2018, however, the Default Judgement was issued on the 8th January 2019, which would have allowed sufficient time for the Claimant to make further inquiries as to my whereabouts and had they approached to DVLA again from August 2018 they would have learned that the Registered Keeper details had changed and perhaps could have obtained my correct details given that my driver’s licence had been updated in respect of an address change in November 2016.
1.7 Considering all of the the above information I was unable to defend this claim properly. Since the application to set aside the Default Judgeent on the 14th May 2019, the Claimant has had sufficient time to share the evidence they hold to support their claims, which would allow the Defendant the opportunity to make additional informed decisions and statements to the Court with regards to their defence, however, this has not yet happened.
No contract
3.1. I submit that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the
Claimant is a Private Parking Company, which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” that the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist. 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 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 have come into force, especially because I have not been provided with evidence to support the claims of the Claimant with regards to the alleged Notice to Keeper being sent to the address listed on the V5.
3.2. The Claimant states that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant was the Registered Keeper, and therefore, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant would have needed to comply with the requirements of Schedule
4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant has not provided such evidence and further submit that the Claimant is publicly well known for not including Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 wording on the “Parking Charge Notices” they issue, and therefore, cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.!
3.3. In addition, a requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the Default Judgement, which has been made on the basis of an alleged parking charge that happened in January 2018, I submit the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.
3.4 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
3.5 It is alleged that the vehicle, registration YG05 XRU, of which the Defendant was the Registered Keeper at the time of the alleged “Parking Charge Notice” in January 2018, was parked on the premises allocated to ParkingEye Ltd at Pavilion Square, Scarborough without displaying a valid ticket.
3.6 It is stated that the Defendant was the Registered Keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing specifying how the terms were breached.!
3.7 Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
3.8 In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the “contravention” according to the Claimant is already committed.
3.9 The Claimant suggests that the Defendant’s non admission as to whether or not they were the driver at the time of the alleged parking offence is an invalid defence, however, the Defendant again draws the Court to the attention of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant, as the Registered Keeper at the time of offence, has not been given the opportunity to review evidence held and consider who was driving the vehicle and under what circumstances an alleged contract was agreed. In addition, different dates provided surrounding the offence date mean that this remains not possible at this time as I have been unable to review any evidence held by the Claimant. As the Defendant has not been given the opportunity to do this within a 29 day period specified, they have unjustly been held responsible by the Claimant.
Unclear, ambiguous, inadequate and lack of International Parking Community (IPC) compliant signage
3.10 Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner that would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The Claimant has provided digital copies of alleged signage from the car park in question, the terms of which are illegible to the Defendant. Having revisited the car park, the terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The Defendant is able to provide photographs to the Court to support this standing.
3.11 The signage located at the site formed no contract with the driver and does not meet the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) guideline requirements. Firstly terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear and prominent that the party “must” have known about it and agreed. The signage present at the location of the alleged contravention does not identify the Claimant as a creditor for any charges that arise out of the supposed contract or damages following a breach of the contract and the Defendant has not been provided with evidence to the contrary. Therefore, this cannot form a contract between the driver and landowner or the Claimant.!
3.10 Consequently, should a contract be found to exist between the landowner and the driver, the Claimant not having been identified as a creditor is unable to pursue this claim as stated in the IPC CoP. To date, no evidence has been provided that establishes that the Claimant is authorised to pursue this claim on behalf of the landowner, which also does not comply Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
3.11 Upon entering the location in a car where the contravention took place, the positioning of the signs do not make it immediately clear what they are for or what the specific parking conditions were. In addition, no driver can have been expected to have entered into any contract without first being able to read it.!
3.12 Due to the high positioning along with the overall minute size of text used, the terms and conditions on the signage are barely legible making it difficult to read and understand. Within the IPC CoP it clearly states that “The signs must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can read all the of the Group A and Group B text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead” and “The signs must be at a suitable height…. no part of the sign which contains relevant text should be over 6’’, or under 12’’, from the ground level. Such text must be of a size which is easily legible having regard to the location and in any event should not be less than 5mm in height”.!The Defendant is able to submit photographic evidence to the contrary of these requirements.
3.13 The signage positioning at the location is placed in a manner that makes it very difficult to read before entering the premises. The font size of the body of text which states the contractual obligations are too small to read, especially in a moving vehicle. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms the Claimant is relying upon, are too small for any driver to see, read and understand whilst driving or stationary, as the text containing the information is not easily legible.!
3.14 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue “Parking Charge Notices”, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
Costs
3.15 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge state/*d on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £85. The claim includes additional costs, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
3.16 In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no Cause of Action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
Name:!
Signature:
Date:
Claim No. XXXXXXX
BETWEEN:!
ParkingEye Ltd Claimant!
-- and --!
XXXXXX Defendant
_____________________________________
DEFENCE
______________________________________
I am XXXXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter.
This my Defence in support of my application dated 14th May 2019 to:
· Order for the original claim to be dismissed.
· The Default Judgement dated 8th January 2019 is set aside as it was not properly served at the Defendant's current address;
· The Claimant does pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;
1. 3.Dismissal of original claim
Incorrect address used for correspondence
1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in January 2019. When I contacted Northampton Couty Court on the 13th May 2019 I was informed that the alleged “Parking Charge Notice” was issued on the 23rd January 2018, however, I note on the Claimant’s submissions for the scheduled hearing on the 25th July 2019 it states that the date of the parking event occurred on the 17th January 2018. Regardless, the claim form was not served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until 10th May 2019 after a credit check was completed in respect of a housing application I had made.
1.2. Though I regularly monitor my credit, which has always been excellent, the Default Judgement against me was not visible on the routine reports obtained prior to this credit check being completed. I understand that this Claim was served at XXXXXX, which I learned after contacting Northampton County Court Business Centre on 13th May 2019 had been obtained by the Claimant from a credit reference agency as new details for the registered keeper upon receiving no response from the Defendant. However, I have never resided at an address by this name. Whilst I have resided in similarly named university accommodation at XXXXX, this was from September 2013 until July 2015. As this was temporary university accommodation, after completing my degree, I rented a room from a colleague at XXXXXX until October 2015 before moving to my current address.
1.3. In support of the above statements, I am able to provide a copy of the credit report that I obtained on the 10th May 2019 after being advised to undertake a credit check with the same reference agency that had been used by the letting agent. Not only does this show my previous positive credit behaviour, but also, clearly evidences that I have been linked with my current address for a number of years. In addition, I have a copy of the tenancy agreement for my current address as well as confirmation from XXXXX Council showing that my details were provided to them prior to the parking charge issued for the purposes of paying council tax. I am also able to submit to the Court a copy of my driver’s licence and bank statements that demonstrate my previous efforts in making my whereabouts identifiable for companies such as the Claimant.
1.4. Prior to making this application to Court, I reached out to the Citizens Advice Bureau who informed me of the likelihood that the Claimant obtained my address from the DVLA, however, it was only during this conversation that I learned the DVLA will have provided the address listed on the V5 document, which was XXXXX. Regrettably, this address had not been updated both because before moving to my current address I had resided in temporary accommodation and the address on my V5 was that of my Mother’s, which I returned to between semesters, and because when my Mother moved out of this address in 2016 I updated my address with the DVLA as shown on my driver’s licence, however, had not understood the need to update my V5 in addition to this. Despite this oversight, the vehicle in question was declared SORN in July 2018 before being sold in August 2018 at which time the Registered Keeper of the vehicle was changed. I submit to this Court that sufficient time had passed between the parking charge being issued and the Default Judgement being made that due diligence ought to have been taken by the Claimant to obtain correct contact information and provide documentation, which would have made it possible for me to challenge the Claimant’s claim before or after initial Court proceedings.
1.5. During my contact with Northampton County Court Business Centre on the 13th May 2019 I learned that no evidence is currently held to support the claims made by the Claimant. Whilst it is alleged that the vehicle, which I was the registered keeper for was captured by an ANPR system entering and leaving the sight without a valid parking ticket, no proof has been provided to verify this nor has any evidence that the vehicle was at any time parked on the private land suggested. No additional evidence has been submitted by the Claimant in preparation for the hearing on the 25th July 2019 as to whether the Claimant sent a Notice to Keeper or indeed whether, if this was sent, it was done so within statutory timescales or contained images captured and whether these images show who was driving the vehicle, whether the vehicle was parked and/or whether a valid ticket was or was not purchased. As the details held by the Court and further submission from the Claimant do not further enlighten the Defendant to this, I do not have proof of the incident the Claimant alleges has taken place on either the 17th January 2018 nor the 23rd January 2018 and this means that I have been unable to appeal matters before, during or following previous Court proceedings.
1.6. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s current and correct contact details. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results in an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country. I submit that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim. It is alleged that the parking event date took place in January 2018, however, the Default Judgement was issued on the 8th January 2019, which would have allowed sufficient time for the Claimant to make further inquiries as to my whereabouts and had they approached to DVLA again from August 2018 they would have learned that the Registered Keeper details had changed and perhaps could have obtained my correct details given that my driver’s licence had been updated in respect of an address change in November 2016.
1.7 Considering all of the the above information I was unable to defend this claim properly. Since the application to set aside the Default Judgeent on the 14th May 2019, the Claimant has had sufficient time to share the evidence they hold to support their claims, which would allow the Defendant the opportunity to make additional informed decisions and statements to the Court with regards to their defence, however, this has not yet happened.
No contract
3.1. I submit that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the
Claimant is a Private Parking Company, which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” that the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist. 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 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 have come into force, especially because I have not been provided with evidence to support the claims of the Claimant with regards to the alleged Notice to Keeper being sent to the address listed on the V5.
3.2. The Claimant states that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant was the Registered Keeper, and therefore, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant would have needed to comply with the requirements of Schedule
4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant has not provided such evidence and further submit that the Claimant is publicly well known for not including Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 wording on the “Parking Charge Notices” they issue, and therefore, cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.!
3.3. In addition, a requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the Default Judgement, which has been made on the basis of an alleged parking charge that happened in January 2018, I submit the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.
3.4 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
3.5 It is alleged that the vehicle, registration YG05 XRU, of which the Defendant was the Registered Keeper at the time of the alleged “Parking Charge Notice” in January 2018, was parked on the premises allocated to ParkingEye Ltd at Pavilion Square, Scarborough without displaying a valid ticket.
3.6 It is stated that the Defendant was the Registered Keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing specifying how the terms were breached.!
3.7 Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
3.8 In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the “contravention” according to the Claimant is already committed.
3.9 The Claimant suggests that the Defendant’s non admission as to whether or not they were the driver at the time of the alleged parking offence is an invalid defence, however, the Defendant again draws the Court to the attention of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant, as the Registered Keeper at the time of offence, has not been given the opportunity to review evidence held and consider who was driving the vehicle and under what circumstances an alleged contract was agreed. In addition, different dates provided surrounding the offence date mean that this remains not possible at this time as I have been unable to review any evidence held by the Claimant. As the Defendant has not been given the opportunity to do this within a 29 day period specified, they have unjustly been held responsible by the Claimant.
Unclear, ambiguous, inadequate and lack of International Parking Community (IPC) compliant signage
3.10 Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner that would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The Claimant has provided digital copies of alleged signage from the car park in question, the terms of which are illegible to the Defendant. Having revisited the car park, the terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The Defendant is able to provide photographs to the Court to support this standing.
3.11 The signage located at the site formed no contract with the driver and does not meet the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) guideline requirements. Firstly terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear and prominent that the party “must” have known about it and agreed. The signage present at the location of the alleged contravention does not identify the Claimant as a creditor for any charges that arise out of the supposed contract or damages following a breach of the contract and the Defendant has not been provided with evidence to the contrary. Therefore, this cannot form a contract between the driver and landowner or the Claimant.!
3.10 Consequently, should a contract be found to exist between the landowner and the driver, the Claimant not having been identified as a creditor is unable to pursue this claim as stated in the IPC CoP. To date, no evidence has been provided that establishes that the Claimant is authorised to pursue this claim on behalf of the landowner, which also does not comply Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
3.11 Upon entering the location in a car where the contravention took place, the positioning of the signs do not make it immediately clear what they are for or what the specific parking conditions were. In addition, no driver can have been expected to have entered into any contract without first being able to read it.!
3.12 Due to the high positioning along with the overall minute size of text used, the terms and conditions on the signage are barely legible making it difficult to read and understand. Within the IPC CoP it clearly states that “The signs must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can read all the of the Group A and Group B text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead” and “The signs must be at a suitable height…. no part of the sign which contains relevant text should be over 6’’, or under 12’’, from the ground level. Such text must be of a size which is easily legible having regard to the location and in any event should not be less than 5mm in height”.!The Defendant is able to submit photographic evidence to the contrary of these requirements.
3.13 The signage positioning at the location is placed in a manner that makes it very difficult to read before entering the premises. The font size of the body of text which states the contractual obligations are too small to read, especially in a moving vehicle. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms the Claimant is relying upon, are too small for any driver to see, read and understand whilst driving or stationary, as the text containing the information is not easily legible.!
3.14 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue “Parking Charge Notices”, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
Costs
3.15 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge state/*d on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £85. The claim includes additional costs, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
3.16 In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no Cause of Action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
Name:!
Signature:
Date:
Thanks so much!
Comment