Tweet
URGENT - CCJ Set Aside N244 WS - Please Review and Provide Corrections or Suggestions
Hello Everyone,
I would appreciate your feedback on the following. Many thanks!
The signage was insufficient, and I never received the court papers.
WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
1. I, NAME, residing at ADDRESS, CITY, am the Defendant in this case. This statement supports my application to set aside the default judgment entered against me on DATE, case number NUMBER. The claim pertains to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from DATE at PRIVATE LAND, which was under construction at the time. The exact location of the PCN (street name, number, and postal code) is not specified. The claimant alleges a debt arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract, which I deny. Furthermore, I deny any agreement to pay the claimant a £100 ‘parking charge notice’ (PCN). Additionally, there was insufficient signage.
Under CPR 13.2, the court must set aside a default judgment if it was wrongly entered, including situations where the conditions in CPR 12.3(1) or 12.3(3) were not satisfied, such as when the claim form was not properly served.
CPR 13.3 states (1) In any other case, the court may set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if –
(a) the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or
(b) it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why –
(i) the judgment should be set aside or varied; or
(ii) the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.
2. With my application dated XXXX I request to:
2.1 Please set aside the default judgment dated DATE (Claim No: NUMBER) as it was not properly served to my current address at ADDRESS, CITY. I never received any correspondence at my current address from Gladstone Solicitors or any company acting on behalf of the claimant, nor at any of my previous addresses while I was residing there.
In an email sent by Gladstone Solicitors on DATE, after contacting the claimant on DATE, they stated: “We remind you it is the responsibility of the Registered Keeper to ensure the data held by the DVLA is accurate and up to date. Given the last V5C was last issued to the vehicle in question on the DATE, it is clear you failed to update the DVLA when vacating ADDRESS”, but I sold the car on PREVIOUS DATE. On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not complied with Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 6.9(3), as they failed to exercise due diligence by using an address where the Defendant no longer resides and did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant’s current address.
If the creditor cannot find my current address, they should seek alternative methods CPR 6.15 to send me the claim form. The claimant had my email address, which I provided after submitting an online appeal on DATE.
2.2 Set aside the default judgment dated DATE (Claim No: NUMBER) as I have real prospect of successfully defending the claim and I don't agree I owe the money because:
•There was no sign upon entry to carpark, contravening requirement 18.2 of the BPA code of practice.
• The Defendant denies that the signs at this location met the mandatory test of transparency of terms that are 'bound to be seen', as set out within the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For a driver any terms relating to a parking contract would have had to have been extremely clear in all places within the site, in very large letters to ensure all drivers were 'bound to see' the terms. In the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others, the judge decided that the signs put up by Parking Control Management (PCM) were not clear enough. The signs were considered “forbidding,” meaning they didn’t properly explain the parking rules. Because of this, the judge ruled that there was no valid contract between PCM and the people who parked there, so PCM couldn’t charge them for parking.
• The claimant’s photographic evidence does not show the car stopped adjacent to, or in close proximity to, any signage indicating the terms.
• Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished.
• The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. This case is distinguished from the Beavis case in that there are inadequate signs which are incapable of binding the driver who did not enter into any contract, and nor was the site of commercial value. This land is not comparable with the retail park in Beavis, and nor are the facts of the case.
• The Claimant is put to strict proof, with the bar being set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] in the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be un-enforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.'
• The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
• The alleged contract does not permit parking, but states a parking charge of £100, which is contradictory and confusing. Evidence how a parking charge which the BPA Code of Practice sets a ceiling for, of not more than £100, has escalated to a brazen attempt at triple 'recovery' despite the POFA also stating that a keeper can only be pursued for the sum on the Notice to Keeper (double recovery not being allowed).
• I also therefore submit that the Claimant is in breach if data and did not have a valid reason to apply for my keeper data from the DVLA. The operator contract with the DVLA only allows them to obtain data for parking contraventions and not for briefly stopping. Public record indicates that the use of cameras for such purposes is ineffective as they do not provide evidence of parking or of the duration of a vehicles.
• My name and address information (together with other information) is classified as personal data within the meaning of s1(1) of the Data Protection Act (DPA). The Claimant has misused this data by attempting to claim a charge when there is no possibility that a lawful reason exists.
• This is therefore a breach of data principle 1 (data must be used lawfully) and 2 (data must only be used for the purpose provided).
• The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.
2.3 Set aside the default judgment dated DATE (Claim No: NUMBER) because as soon as I became aware of the judgment, I took immediate steps to address the issue. I contacted the court and the claimant to resolve the matter and filed this application promptly.
2.4 Order for the original claim to be dismissed.
2.5 Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £303 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
3.1 I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged event.
3.2 I understand that Parking Control Management Ltd, the Claimant, obtained a Default Judgment against me, the Defendant, on DATE. The claim pertains to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from DATE at PRIVATE LAND (at that moment was a project under construction), although the exact location of the PCN is not specified (street name, number, and postal code).
3.3 The claim form was not served at my then current address ADDRESS, CITY, and I was therefore unaware of the Default County Court Judgment against me until I discovered the CCJ on my credit file.
3.4 The address on the claim is: ADDRESS. I have moved a few times since the date of the alleged parking event and the following claim issued against me. The following are my address changes during this period, I received no correspondence at any of these addresses:
• On DATE, I moved to ABROAD due to the COVID-19 pandemic – I provide flight checking confirmation, boarding pass and email giving notice to the landlord.
DATE, moved in to address: ADDRESS – I provide electoral roll updated for this address on DATE
• DATE - moved to current address: ADDRESS, London - I provide my tenancy agreement.
3.5 Furthermore, research into this particular car park managed by Parking Control Management Ltd reveals that many others have also received claim forms at old addresses.
EVENTS
4.1 On DATE after a prospective landlord refunded my holding deposit stating that following reference checks, they were no longer comfortable proceeding with my application.
4.2 On DATE, I discovered this claim after speaking with the real estate agent Open Rent, who informed me that adverse credit was detected on my credit score, despite the credit agencies stating that I had never missed a payment. They advised me to contact Equifax.
4.3 On DATE, Equifax confirmed that I had a CCJ and provided me with the case number.
4.4 On DATE, I purchased the County Court Judgment report from www.trustonline.org.uk for case number NUMBER. The report lists an old address, ADDRESS, where I have not lived since YEAR.
4.5 On DATE, I attempted to contact the County Court Business Centre by telephone but was unable to speak with anyone due to the long waiting time. I also sent an email.
4.6 On DATE, after trying daily, I finally managed to speak by phone with the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information regarding this default judgment. I was informed that I would receive an email containing the Particulars of the Claim, which I received immediately.
4.7 On DATE I sent an email to PCM - PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD to the only publicly available email they display - info@pcm-uk.co.uk to inform them that they had served court papers to an incorrect address, while they could easily have found my current address, thus not complying with the Civil Procedure Rules 6.9 and inviting them to consent to setting aside the claim, rather than wasting the courts time further. I requested an urgent reply to this email, and informed PCM that I was willing to defer making a unilateral application to set aside the judgment until HOUR on DATE.
4.8 On DATE, after failing to reach an agreement for a Consent Order with PCM - PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD, I submitted my case to set aside this judgment and have the opportunity to fairly present my case.
4.9 By reason of the Claimant’s breach of the Civil Procedure Rules, which amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court the claim form was not properly served, the default judgment (a judgment made in the absence of a response from the defendant) should not have been entered. Under CPR 13.2, the court is required to set aside (the N244 fee being ordered to be at the Claimant’s expense) the default judgment if it was entered incorrectly, such as when the claim form was not properly served. Further, the unserved claim has expired and must be dismissed because it is now too late for the particulars of claim to be re-served.
4.10 Given that more than 4 months has passed from issue of proceedings and service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never served) the Defendant submits that this particular claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process. The Defendant has no details of this claim, therefore, if the Claimant believes there is a cause of action then the correct procedure would be to file a claim afresh and to the right address, after furnishing the Defendant with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, issued this time to the correct address for service for this Defendant, which is: ADDRESS London
4.11 There was insufficient signage. The location on AVENUE where the driver left my vehicle had no signs explaining the relevant parking restrictions. Consequently, no contract could be formed with the landowner, making all parking charge notices issued there invalid. There was no parking timer, no barrier on AVENUE, and no sign at the intersection of AVENUE and AVENUE warning that continuing onto AVENUE would mean trespassing on private land. Currently, there is a sign where my car was parked and another at the intersection of AVENUE Avenue and AVENUE Avenue, indicating that it is private land.
4.12 On DATE, the driver parked on AVENUE Avenue to buy a coffee at the café now known as NAME inside the SITE. The driver was there for less than 10 minutes. This government press release mentions a 10-minute grace period before a late fine can be issued. This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson conservative government. Government clamps down on rogue parking firms with new Code of Practice: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g...de-of-practice
4.13 The notification to keeper was incorrect. The Notice to Keeper did not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012. There was no ticket on my vehicle, and the postal notification I received from Parking Control Management Ltd on DATE at my old address, ADDRESS, did not include a correct and complete address for the PCN, failing to specify the exact street name, number, and postal code where my vehicle was located.
4.14 I submitted an appeal to Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd on DATE, but it was rejected. In my appeal, I requested a picture from DATE showing my vehicle, including the registration plate, along with the sign indicating that parking was restricted in that specific space/bay/location, all in the same picture. They did not address the specific points raised in my letter.
4.15 The charge was disproportionate and not commercially justifiable. The amount charged does not reflect any commercially justifiable loss to their company or the landowner. The original fee was £100, but the driver stayed for less than 10 minutes. Now, it has increased to £000, which I believe is excessive. According to the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA), a keeper can only be pursued for the sum stated on the Notice to Keeper.
4.16 The driver believed they were parking on a council street and visibly displayed a council permit in my vehicle. After receiving the notification from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd, I contacted the council, assuming it was a public street. It was then that I realized it was private land because they informed me that parking is free on DATE. The driver ended up parking on private land due to insufficient signage.
4.17 I have discovered from research that the claimant’s legal representative, Gladstone Solicitors, is a robo-claim firm. Gladstone Solicitors has garnered a negative reputation based on various reviews and feedback. Judges have described claims made by Gladstone Solicitors as abusive, particularly when they involve inflated charges beyond the original parking fee. For instance, District Judge Taylor and District Judge Grand have both struck out claims from parking firms using Gladstone’s model, labelling them as "an abuse of process" due to the inclusion of substantial additional charges that were not recoverable under relevant legislation, such as the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE CLAIMANT’S ACTIONS ON THE DEFENDANT’S LIFE AND MENTAL WELLBEING
5.1 This CCJ has significantly impacted my financial situation and personal life, by firstly, ruining my credit score which at the time was very good and as such crippling the defendant financially and preventing the defendant from being able to obtain credit with reasonable interest rates at a most difficult time in the defendant’s life. My son and I are searching for a new place to live because our landlady is selling the flat. I am applying alone, as my son is an 18-year-old university student. My salary is insufficient to afford a two-bedroom flat, and most landlords do not accept students and want two incomes. I have been looking for a place to move for months, and when I finally found a flat, the landlady refused to rent it to me due to the CCJ on my credit record. We are at risk of becoming homeless, and the council cannot provide us with accommodation because we have lived in the council area for less than five years. This entire situation has caused us significant emotional distress.
5.2 The claimant had no grounds to cripple me financially or to subject my family to this trauma. The repercussion of the claimant’s and its peers actions goes beyond that of a decreased credit score.
5.3 My situation shows the severity of the consequences the claimants bullying tactics and actions could have in a person's life, mental and overall wellbeing.
I believe I have a reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim and that it is in the interest of justice to allow me 14 days to present my case. I would like to attend the hearing in person in London court.
I am including supporting evidence with this letter, such as DRIVER flight ticket. He was the driver and has never been a resident of the UK. He is completing the witness section.
Statement of Truth. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
I would appreciate your feedback on the following. Many thanks!
The signage was insufficient, and I never received the court papers.
WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
1. I, NAME, residing at ADDRESS, CITY, am the Defendant in this case. This statement supports my application to set aside the default judgment entered against me on DATE, case number NUMBER. The claim pertains to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from DATE at PRIVATE LAND, which was under construction at the time. The exact location of the PCN (street name, number, and postal code) is not specified. The claimant alleges a debt arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract, which I deny. Furthermore, I deny any agreement to pay the claimant a £100 ‘parking charge notice’ (PCN). Additionally, there was insufficient signage.
Under CPR 13.2, the court must set aside a default judgment if it was wrongly entered, including situations where the conditions in CPR 12.3(1) or 12.3(3) were not satisfied, such as when the claim form was not properly served.
CPR 13.3 states (1) In any other case, the court may set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if –
(a) the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or
(b) it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why –
(i) the judgment should be set aside or varied; or
(ii) the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.
2. With my application dated XXXX I request to:
2.1 Please set aside the default judgment dated DATE (Claim No: NUMBER) as it was not properly served to my current address at ADDRESS, CITY. I never received any correspondence at my current address from Gladstone Solicitors or any company acting on behalf of the claimant, nor at any of my previous addresses while I was residing there.
In an email sent by Gladstone Solicitors on DATE, after contacting the claimant on DATE, they stated: “We remind you it is the responsibility of the Registered Keeper to ensure the data held by the DVLA is accurate and up to date. Given the last V5C was last issued to the vehicle in question on the DATE, it is clear you failed to update the DVLA when vacating ADDRESS”, but I sold the car on PREVIOUS DATE. On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not complied with Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 6.9(3), as they failed to exercise due diligence by using an address where the Defendant no longer resides and did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant’s current address.
If the creditor cannot find my current address, they should seek alternative methods CPR 6.15 to send me the claim form. The claimant had my email address, which I provided after submitting an online appeal on DATE.
2.2 Set aside the default judgment dated DATE (Claim No: NUMBER) as I have real prospect of successfully defending the claim and I don't agree I owe the money because:
•There was no sign upon entry to carpark, contravening requirement 18.2 of the BPA code of practice.
• The Defendant denies that the signs at this location met the mandatory test of transparency of terms that are 'bound to be seen', as set out within the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For a driver any terms relating to a parking contract would have had to have been extremely clear in all places within the site, in very large letters to ensure all drivers were 'bound to see' the terms. In the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others, the judge decided that the signs put up by Parking Control Management (PCM) were not clear enough. The signs were considered “forbidding,” meaning they didn’t properly explain the parking rules. Because of this, the judge ruled that there was no valid contract between PCM and the people who parked there, so PCM couldn’t charge them for parking.
• The claimant’s photographic evidence does not show the car stopped adjacent to, or in close proximity to, any signage indicating the terms.
• Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished.
• The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. This case is distinguished from the Beavis case in that there are inadequate signs which are incapable of binding the driver who did not enter into any contract, and nor was the site of commercial value. This land is not comparable with the retail park in Beavis, and nor are the facts of the case.
• The Claimant is put to strict proof, with the bar being set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] in the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be un-enforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.'
• The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
• The alleged contract does not permit parking, but states a parking charge of £100, which is contradictory and confusing. Evidence how a parking charge which the BPA Code of Practice sets a ceiling for, of not more than £100, has escalated to a brazen attempt at triple 'recovery' despite the POFA also stating that a keeper can only be pursued for the sum on the Notice to Keeper (double recovery not being allowed).
• I also therefore submit that the Claimant is in breach if data and did not have a valid reason to apply for my keeper data from the DVLA. The operator contract with the DVLA only allows them to obtain data for parking contraventions and not for briefly stopping. Public record indicates that the use of cameras for such purposes is ineffective as they do not provide evidence of parking or of the duration of a vehicles.
• My name and address information (together with other information) is classified as personal data within the meaning of s1(1) of the Data Protection Act (DPA). The Claimant has misused this data by attempting to claim a charge when there is no possibility that a lawful reason exists.
• This is therefore a breach of data principle 1 (data must be used lawfully) and 2 (data must only be used for the purpose provided).
• The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.
2.3 Set aside the default judgment dated DATE (Claim No: NUMBER) because as soon as I became aware of the judgment, I took immediate steps to address the issue. I contacted the court and the claimant to resolve the matter and filed this application promptly.
2.4 Order for the original claim to be dismissed.
2.5 Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £303 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
3.1 I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged event.
3.2 I understand that Parking Control Management Ltd, the Claimant, obtained a Default Judgment against me, the Defendant, on DATE. The claim pertains to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from DATE at PRIVATE LAND (at that moment was a project under construction), although the exact location of the PCN is not specified (street name, number, and postal code).
3.3 The claim form was not served at my then current address ADDRESS, CITY, and I was therefore unaware of the Default County Court Judgment against me until I discovered the CCJ on my credit file.
3.4 The address on the claim is: ADDRESS. I have moved a few times since the date of the alleged parking event and the following claim issued against me. The following are my address changes during this period, I received no correspondence at any of these addresses:
• On DATE, I moved to ABROAD due to the COVID-19 pandemic – I provide flight checking confirmation, boarding pass and email giving notice to the landlord.
DATE, moved in to address: ADDRESS – I provide electoral roll updated for this address on DATE
• DATE - moved to current address: ADDRESS, London - I provide my tenancy agreement.
3.5 Furthermore, research into this particular car park managed by Parking Control Management Ltd reveals that many others have also received claim forms at old addresses.
EVENTS
4.1 On DATE after a prospective landlord refunded my holding deposit stating that following reference checks, they were no longer comfortable proceeding with my application.
4.2 On DATE, I discovered this claim after speaking with the real estate agent Open Rent, who informed me that adverse credit was detected on my credit score, despite the credit agencies stating that I had never missed a payment. They advised me to contact Equifax.
4.3 On DATE, Equifax confirmed that I had a CCJ and provided me with the case number.
4.4 On DATE, I purchased the County Court Judgment report from www.trustonline.org.uk for case number NUMBER. The report lists an old address, ADDRESS, where I have not lived since YEAR.
4.5 On DATE, I attempted to contact the County Court Business Centre by telephone but was unable to speak with anyone due to the long waiting time. I also sent an email.
4.6 On DATE, after trying daily, I finally managed to speak by phone with the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information regarding this default judgment. I was informed that I would receive an email containing the Particulars of the Claim, which I received immediately.
4.7 On DATE I sent an email to PCM - PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD to the only publicly available email they display - info@pcm-uk.co.uk to inform them that they had served court papers to an incorrect address, while they could easily have found my current address, thus not complying with the Civil Procedure Rules 6.9 and inviting them to consent to setting aside the claim, rather than wasting the courts time further. I requested an urgent reply to this email, and informed PCM that I was willing to defer making a unilateral application to set aside the judgment until HOUR on DATE.
4.8 On DATE, after failing to reach an agreement for a Consent Order with PCM - PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD, I submitted my case to set aside this judgment and have the opportunity to fairly present my case.
4.9 By reason of the Claimant’s breach of the Civil Procedure Rules, which amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court the claim form was not properly served, the default judgment (a judgment made in the absence of a response from the defendant) should not have been entered. Under CPR 13.2, the court is required to set aside (the N244 fee being ordered to be at the Claimant’s expense) the default judgment if it was entered incorrectly, such as when the claim form was not properly served. Further, the unserved claim has expired and must be dismissed because it is now too late for the particulars of claim to be re-served.
4.10 Given that more than 4 months has passed from issue of proceedings and service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never served) the Defendant submits that this particular claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process. The Defendant has no details of this claim, therefore, if the Claimant believes there is a cause of action then the correct procedure would be to file a claim afresh and to the right address, after furnishing the Defendant with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, issued this time to the correct address for service for this Defendant, which is: ADDRESS London
4.11 There was insufficient signage. The location on AVENUE where the driver left my vehicle had no signs explaining the relevant parking restrictions. Consequently, no contract could be formed with the landowner, making all parking charge notices issued there invalid. There was no parking timer, no barrier on AVENUE, and no sign at the intersection of AVENUE and AVENUE warning that continuing onto AVENUE would mean trespassing on private land. Currently, there is a sign where my car was parked and another at the intersection of AVENUE Avenue and AVENUE Avenue, indicating that it is private land.
4.12 On DATE, the driver parked on AVENUE Avenue to buy a coffee at the café now known as NAME inside the SITE. The driver was there for less than 10 minutes. This government press release mentions a 10-minute grace period before a late fine can be issued. This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson conservative government. Government clamps down on rogue parking firms with new Code of Practice: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g...de-of-practice
4.13 The notification to keeper was incorrect. The Notice to Keeper did not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012. There was no ticket on my vehicle, and the postal notification I received from Parking Control Management Ltd on DATE at my old address, ADDRESS, did not include a correct and complete address for the PCN, failing to specify the exact street name, number, and postal code where my vehicle was located.
4.14 I submitted an appeal to Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd on DATE, but it was rejected. In my appeal, I requested a picture from DATE showing my vehicle, including the registration plate, along with the sign indicating that parking was restricted in that specific space/bay/location, all in the same picture. They did not address the specific points raised in my letter.
4.15 The charge was disproportionate and not commercially justifiable. The amount charged does not reflect any commercially justifiable loss to their company or the landowner. The original fee was £100, but the driver stayed for less than 10 minutes. Now, it has increased to £000, which I believe is excessive. According to the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA), a keeper can only be pursued for the sum stated on the Notice to Keeper.
4.16 The driver believed they were parking on a council street and visibly displayed a council permit in my vehicle. After receiving the notification from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd, I contacted the council, assuming it was a public street. It was then that I realized it was private land because they informed me that parking is free on DATE. The driver ended up parking on private land due to insufficient signage.
4.17 I have discovered from research that the claimant’s legal representative, Gladstone Solicitors, is a robo-claim firm. Gladstone Solicitors has garnered a negative reputation based on various reviews and feedback. Judges have described claims made by Gladstone Solicitors as abusive, particularly when they involve inflated charges beyond the original parking fee. For instance, District Judge Taylor and District Judge Grand have both struck out claims from parking firms using Gladstone’s model, labelling them as "an abuse of process" due to the inclusion of substantial additional charges that were not recoverable under relevant legislation, such as the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE CLAIMANT’S ACTIONS ON THE DEFENDANT’S LIFE AND MENTAL WELLBEING
5.1 This CCJ has significantly impacted my financial situation and personal life, by firstly, ruining my credit score which at the time was very good and as such crippling the defendant financially and preventing the defendant from being able to obtain credit with reasonable interest rates at a most difficult time in the defendant’s life. My son and I are searching for a new place to live because our landlady is selling the flat. I am applying alone, as my son is an 18-year-old university student. My salary is insufficient to afford a two-bedroom flat, and most landlords do not accept students and want two incomes. I have been looking for a place to move for months, and when I finally found a flat, the landlady refused to rent it to me due to the CCJ on my credit record. We are at risk of becoming homeless, and the council cannot provide us with accommodation because we have lived in the council area for less than five years. This entire situation has caused us significant emotional distress.
5.2 The claimant had no grounds to cripple me financially or to subject my family to this trauma. The repercussion of the claimant’s and its peers actions goes beyond that of a decreased credit score.
5.3 My situation shows the severity of the consequences the claimants bullying tactics and actions could have in a person's life, mental and overall wellbeing.
I believe I have a reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim and that it is in the interest of justice to allow me 14 days to present my case. I would like to attend the hearing in person in London court.
I am including supporting evidence with this letter, such as DRIVER flight ticket. He was the driver and has never been a resident of the UK. He is completing the witness section.
Statement of Truth. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
