Tweet
Firstly thanks to anyone who gives up their time to look at this. I
As a brief summary
1. I re-joined a leisure centre in November 2022. When I was a previous member the rules of parking were 3 hours free and then times beyond that required the car park ticket being validated by a member of staff, signage explaining this procedure is also still used within the car park to this day.
2. On re-joining I was not made aware of new parking procedures which involved registering your vehicle on a tablet device, a couple of weeks post joining a number of posters and initiatives were set up by the leisure centre informing people of the parking procedures.
3. Some months after joining I received letters from Smart Parking Ltd making me aware of three fines that had over-run their initial payment periods all occurring in my first week of joining the leisure centre. I should point out that I suspect I did not receive my initial fine payment letters as my V5C was not registered at my current address (something which I had completely forgot about when moving to my current property in 2017).
4. I spoke to the leisure centre about my fines, informing them at the same time of not being made aware of the correct parking procedures and they suggested I initially write to Smart Parking Ltd asking for when the fines were received, which I did with a subject to access email in March 2023.
5. I received a Claim Form (15th September 2023) and following further dialogue with the leisure centre over and some severe procrastination (yes I'm a k**b) on my behalf they agreed to cancel my fines done on 18th October 2023.
6. I was noted of a CCJ against my name when reviewing my credit score in November, the date of the CCJ was 9th October 2023.
7. There has been about a month delay in me completing my N244 from the time I found out about my CCJ due to personal circumstances (separating from my partner). I issued an email to the claimants solicitors on 22nd December asking them to consent to a set aside of the judgment within 7 days to which I have yet to receive a response.
I have put together an N244 application using the very helpful information on this website as well as from other sources and was hoping someone would be able to provide any feedback on how I can improve section 3 and 10 of my application (see below) if possible. I am mindful that this doesn't contain a Witness Statement, a Draft Order, and a Draft Defence which take sometime to do but have read that these can be completed after the application has been made. I would like to send off my N244 application in 2023.
Section 3
THAT THE DEFAULT JUDGEMENT DATED 15/09/2023 BE SET ASIDE AS THE PARKING CHARGE HAS BEEN REMOVED BY THE LAND OWNER (BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL).
Section 10
The CCJ should be set aside under CPR 13.3, there being several good reasons to support the fact that the CCJ should not stand under the circumstances and I should be afforded the opportunity to defend it, or in the alternative, a chance for the parking operator Claimant to discontinue the Claim (as per the instructions of their principal) once this CCJ is set aside:
- The Claim was defective. It does not even explain how many parking charges are being sought, the dates of them (assuming more than two) or what the terms were, or what the various alleged breaches were, why the sum is so extortionately high and why interest appears to have been applied on the whole quantum from an unknown single date when it would be impossible for £510 to have been due. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant was unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost were being pursued, and believed that the charges were being cancelled. This all made it particularly difficult to respond with a 'defence' at the time. Compliance with the CPRs is not optional for a Claimant - and their breach came first, and their breach caused my difficulty in knowing how to defend. If the parking operator believed that there was an adequate case it needs to be properly pleaded, with supplementary Particulars in multi-PCN cases.
- The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.
- A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript attached) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
- This extremely poor pleading means the case only became apparent to me late in the process. I did not know how to defend an unquantified sum of £510 which bore no relation to any signs, and where there was no allegation set out that I could have reasonably been expected to respond to at the time of the Claim.
- I did not ignore it; the landowner wanted the charges cancelled and the Claimant knows this yet still pressed ahead with a default CCJ. Rightly or wrongly, I continued to complain to the parking operator's principal (landowner - the leisure centre) and following dialogue with the leisure centre that had commenced before the date of the Claim, they agreed to cancel these parking charges and this was finally confirmed in October 2023. See Exhibit X (receipt of PCN admin charges for cancelling fines).
- In the time between my initial dialogue and the confirmation of the cancelling of all parking charges this Claimant had not only filed a claim but sought default judgment, despite knowing that the landowner had contacted them to require cancellation.
As a brief summary
1. I re-joined a leisure centre in November 2022. When I was a previous member the rules of parking were 3 hours free and then times beyond that required the car park ticket being validated by a member of staff, signage explaining this procedure is also still used within the car park to this day.
2. On re-joining I was not made aware of new parking procedures which involved registering your vehicle on a tablet device, a couple of weeks post joining a number of posters and initiatives were set up by the leisure centre informing people of the parking procedures.
3. Some months after joining I received letters from Smart Parking Ltd making me aware of three fines that had over-run their initial payment periods all occurring in my first week of joining the leisure centre. I should point out that I suspect I did not receive my initial fine payment letters as my V5C was not registered at my current address (something which I had completely forgot about when moving to my current property in 2017).
4. I spoke to the leisure centre about my fines, informing them at the same time of not being made aware of the correct parking procedures and they suggested I initially write to Smart Parking Ltd asking for when the fines were received, which I did with a subject to access email in March 2023.
5. I received a Claim Form (15th September 2023) and following further dialogue with the leisure centre over and some severe procrastination (yes I'm a k**b) on my behalf they agreed to cancel my fines done on 18th October 2023.
6. I was noted of a CCJ against my name when reviewing my credit score in November, the date of the CCJ was 9th October 2023.
7. There has been about a month delay in me completing my N244 from the time I found out about my CCJ due to personal circumstances (separating from my partner). I issued an email to the claimants solicitors on 22nd December asking them to consent to a set aside of the judgment within 7 days to which I have yet to receive a response.
I have put together an N244 application using the very helpful information on this website as well as from other sources and was hoping someone would be able to provide any feedback on how I can improve section 3 and 10 of my application (see below) if possible. I am mindful that this doesn't contain a Witness Statement, a Draft Order, and a Draft Defence which take sometime to do but have read that these can be completed after the application has been made. I would like to send off my N244 application in 2023.
Section 3
THAT THE DEFAULT JUDGEMENT DATED 15/09/2023 BE SET ASIDE AS THE PARKING CHARGE HAS BEEN REMOVED BY THE LAND OWNER (BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL).
Section 10
The CCJ should be set aside under CPR 13.3, there being several good reasons to support the fact that the CCJ should not stand under the circumstances and I should be afforded the opportunity to defend it, or in the alternative, a chance for the parking operator Claimant to discontinue the Claim (as per the instructions of their principal) once this CCJ is set aside:
- The Claim was defective. It does not even explain how many parking charges are being sought, the dates of them (assuming more than two) or what the terms were, or what the various alleged breaches were, why the sum is so extortionately high and why interest appears to have been applied on the whole quantum from an unknown single date when it would be impossible for £510 to have been due. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant was unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost were being pursued, and believed that the charges were being cancelled. This all made it particularly difficult to respond with a 'defence' at the time. Compliance with the CPRs is not optional for a Claimant - and their breach came first, and their breach caused my difficulty in knowing how to defend. If the parking operator believed that there was an adequate case it needs to be properly pleaded, with supplementary Particulars in multi-PCN cases.
- The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.
- A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript attached) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
- This extremely poor pleading means the case only became apparent to me late in the process. I did not know how to defend an unquantified sum of £510 which bore no relation to any signs, and where there was no allegation set out that I could have reasonably been expected to respond to at the time of the Claim.
- I did not ignore it; the landowner wanted the charges cancelled and the Claimant knows this yet still pressed ahead with a default CCJ. Rightly or wrongly, I continued to complain to the parking operator's principal (landowner - the leisure centre) and following dialogue with the leisure centre that had commenced before the date of the Claim, they agreed to cancel these parking charges and this was finally confirmed in October 2023. See Exhibit X (receipt of PCN admin charges for cancelling fines).
- In the time between my initial dialogue and the confirmation of the cancelling of all parking charges this Claimant had not only filed a claim but sought default judgment, despite knowing that the landowner had contacted them to require cancellation.
