PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Need CCJ removed - do companies like CE generally consent?
post Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 10:28
Post #1

New Member

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 26 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,113

I found out about a CCJ from several years ago that I had no idea about. It's a parking violation on a private parking lot whilst using a hired car. I was never issued with any notice of this CCJ and only figured it out this year.

Lots of these forums recommend going down the 'set aside' route and fighting this in person, but I am kindly requesting advice if it is a smoother process if I contact the company in question, agree to a payment amount on the condition that they agree to 'set aside' the CCJ.

Is this reasonable? Most of the advice is to not contact them, but I literally have no details of the claim and will need to contact them to formulate a defense anyway.

Any advice is much appreciated!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 2)
post Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 10:28
Post #

Advertise here!

Go to the top of the page
Quote Post
post Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 11:26
Post #2


Group: Members
Posts: 11,306
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457

A PCN with a hired car is normally good news for the hirer as the PPCs rarely get it right in those circumstances.

How old is "several Years", it will drop of your credit report after 6 years.

You can apply for a set aside with an agreement with them and it will cost £100 for the privilege. £255 gets you a set aside without them being involved and if they have got this CCJ by issuing a claim against the wrong address then you may be able to claim this back.

A SAR request to the PPC requesting all the data they hold against you. Did you get a parking charge in your own right for the alleged infringement?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 13:06
Post #3

New Member

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 26 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,113

The charge was from 2016. It was through one of the 'per hour' rental companies. They sent me the PCN and a 'notice of redirection', and informed me not to pay until contacted by the Council (obviously a default template).

I then mailed the concierge and informed them that I refuse to pay - I was a resident in the building, and was merely loading the car because I was moving. The concierge told me they would forward the mails onto the building manager, and I heard nothing further.

We're now in 2019 and this has shown up because I applied for a mortgage. I had long since forgotten about this - I never received any further info, let alone information that it's being challenged in court.

My concern is that most of the information I've come across sets out arguments for when you are the owner of the car. In this case, I am not, and as such I need to make sure that my statement is correct.

This is what I've come up with so far. Any advice is appreciated.

To Whom it may concern

I am XXXXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter.
This my supporting Statement in support of my application dated XXX to:
· Set aside the Default Judgement dated XXX as it was not properly served at my current address;
· 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 XXXX. However, this claim form has not been served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until XXXX when I was attempting to apply for a mortgage. I understand that this Claim was served at XXXX. However, I moved to a new address in XXX.

1.2. On XXX I received a 'Notice of Violation Transfer' from XXX, informing me of a PCN lodged against one of their hired cars that I was using at the time. This email explicitly informed me not to pay the PCN until I was contacted by the Council. (Article A)

1.3 The PCN sent by XXX was addressed to XXX, and not to my name (Article B).

1.4. At no time have I received a PCN addressed to me, or any correspondence from XXX.

1.5. I have also never received any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and I thus was never able to challenge the Claimant’s claim.

1.6. On the XXX I contacted Northampton County Court to find out details of the Default Judgement. The court papers contain limited details of the alleged incident and I was able to find out details of a parking ticket through the online service for XXXXX.

1.7. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s 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.

1.8. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim.

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

2. Order dismissing the Claim

2.1. 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 Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.

2.2. 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 thus 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 come into force.

2.3. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must comply with 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 cannot provide such evidence and further submit that the Claimant does not include ‘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.

2.4. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that this 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, 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.

2.5. I further submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:
2.5.1. 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.
2.5.2. 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.
2.5.3. 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.
2.5.4. 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 Civil Enforcement Ltd.
2.6. 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.
2.7. 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.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:



Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 24th August 2019 - 03:34
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.