PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

CCJ Claim, Defending a claim, advice please?
ThomasShelby
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 12:50
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,211



A CCJ Claim has been made against me. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, when it was taken by a friend of mine who parked on private land whereby he was the legal occupant of an apartment which allowed him to park on the private car park. He used his remote to open the gates of the car park and close it, he received 8 separate invoices which he appealed against but did not receive any response, he also explained in his appeal that he was the legal occupant of the premises that was rented through a letting agent that did not provide him with the parking permit. How can I go about this claim made against me? I am defending the claim explaining to the court i was not the driver at the time and the legal occupant did have the right to park, invoices were appealed against but not response was given. I also never received any correspondence other than the CCJ Claim. Could someone please tell me what steps I could take to defend myself as the claim is of a large sum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 12:50
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 13:11
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,204
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



When did you receive the summons?

Did you not receive a Letter Before Claim?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 13:24
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,667
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



As you were not driving did they comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue you?

See here.

Which company is this?

QUOTE (ThomasShelby @ Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 12:50) *
I also never received any correspondence other than the CCJ Claim.

None whatsoever?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 14:51
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,304
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



First: its not a "CCJ form". Its a country court CLAIM form. "J" means judgement. You have not got a judgement yet.
Second: Acknowledge the claim. Do not contest jurisdiction unless you live outside England and Wales
Third: do NOT start the defence online

Show us the full particulars of claim. Which PPC. What does the LEASE say? That is KEY TO THIS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 20:20
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,043
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 14:51) *
Its a country court CLAIM form. "

Or even "County".


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 20:45
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,428
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Post #2 here covers what to do about a court claim, from start to finish:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

99% of well-defended PPC cases - where the OP sticks around from defence and through all the process, being coached on WS and evidence and then prior to the hearing - are won on MSE. I've documented it in 2017.

A similar almost all winning % is reported on here too, so we hope you have not yet submitted a defence...?

You need our free help and you won't be sending off the paperwork to the court, this is done by email to the CCBC after you have acknowledged.

QUOTE
he received 8 separate invoices which he appealed against but did not receive any response, he also explained in his appeal that he was the legal occupant of the premises that was rented through a letting agent that did not provide him with the parking permit. How can I go about this claim made against me?


Now, which PPC is this about?

What date was on the claim form?

What do the Particulars of Claim say, on the left of the front page?

Are all 8 PCNs lumped together?

Have you acknowledged the claim on MCOL (please don't ask what that is...I've given you the MSE thread and it's all in the second post, plus the 5th post there explains the common parking forum acronyms).

But you have not defended yet, not put a single letter in the Defence box?

Do you believe your friend appealed, at all?

Did he keep a copy of his letter showing when he created/edited it?

It makes little sense that he appealed, gave his name & address, yet the PPC is pursuing YOU (they can't if they know the driver).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ThomasShelby
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 15:32
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,211



Hey, thank you guys first of all for your kind replies, much appreciated. It is a claim form 'In the County Court Business Centre'. The courts address is as following:

Money Claims Online
COUNTY COURT BULK CENTRE
ST KATHARINES HOUSE
21-27 ST KATHARINES STREET
NN1 2LH

The only correspondence i received from the claimant was on the 15/11/2017 and that was the claim form issued by the County Court.
I have attached a copy of the particulars of claim and also the T&C's of that car park in a PDF. I have sent back the acknowledgment to the court today in my defence and the PPC name is Vehicle Control Services.

Thank you for your help.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  POC.pdf ( 262.59K ) Number of downloads: 39
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 16:29
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,758
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



What defence ?

You should not have sent a defence without critique by the forum, you best tell us what the defence you posted to the court as you have the possibility to use the witness statement.

You could have acknowledged and then sent a defence later as acknowledgement gives you an additional 14 days to file a defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ThomasShelby
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 23:28
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,211



Sorry i meant i have prepared my defence but not sent it yet. I sent of the acknowledgment. How can i use a witness statement, who can i use as my witness?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 23:35
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,428
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



YOU are the witness.

You need to read the NEWBIES thread on MSE post #2 of it, all about court stage.

You haven't answered my questions, please do. I asked them all for a reason.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 24 Nov 2017 - 09:46
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,304
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Currently you're jumping all over the place.

Stop. Slow.

Read post 2 of the MSE newbies forum. That gives you some ideas of the layouts for defences. That is what you need to get on with right now. Dont jump across to something way further down the line.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ThomasShelby
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:13
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,211



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 20:45) *
Post #2 here covers what to do about a court claim, from start to finish:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

99% of well-defended PPC cases - where the OP sticks around from defence and through all the process, being coached on WS and evidence and then prior to the hearing - are won on MSE. I've documented it in 2017.

A similar almost all winning % is reported on here too, so we hope you have not yet submitted a defence...?

You need our free help and you won't be sending off the paperwork to the court, this is done by email to the CCBC after you have acknowledged.

QUOTE
he received 8 separate invoices which he appealed against but did not receive any response, he also explained in his appeal that he was the legal occupant of the premises that was rented through a letting agent that did not provide him with the parking permit. How can I go about this claim made against me?


Now, which PPC is this about?

What date was on the claim form?

What do the Particulars of Claim say, on the left of the front page?

Are all 8 PCNs lumped together?

Have you acknowledged the claim on MCOL (please don't ask what that is...I've given you the MSE thread and it's all in the second post, plus the 5th post there explains the common parking forum acronyms).

But you have not defended yet, not put a single letter in the Defence box?

Do you believe your friend appealed, at all?

Did he keep a copy of his letter showing when he created/edited it?

It makes little sense that he appealed, gave his name & address, yet the PPC is pursuing YOU (they can't if they know the driver).



The PPC is Vehicle Control Services.
The date on the claim form is as follows
I have included a image of the 8 invoices and the particulars of claim with this reply.
I have only sent the Acknowledgement of, will be posting the reply on Thursday. I have included a copy of the defence with this reply.
Yes, I am certain he had appealed. I am certain he informed the claimant he was the driver of the vehicle at the time. Unfortunately he did not keep any copies.
They are coming after me as I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  VCS_PPC.pdf ( 316.13K ) Number of downloads: 37
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 23:06
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,304
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



If there is proof they were told of the driver, and given a name and full address, the keeper has no liability.

What was the issue date?

DO NOT SEND THAT RESPONSE. It is NOT a defence.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 23:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ThomasShelby
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 19:17
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,211



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 23:06) *
If there is proof they were told of the driver, and given a name and full address, the keeper has no liability.

What was the issue date?

DO NOT SEND THAT RESPONSE. It is NOT a defence.


Yes, but what do I do now they are pursuing me. The issue date was 15/11/2017.

How shall i send of my defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 19:22
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,428
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



For a recently-discussed defence, look at recent threads, e.g. this defence as shown by bargepole and edited suggestions by Southpaw:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117282

That's to give you an idea how to set it out. Your facts are different, but you still write it in that style: 'The defendant denies liability because...'

Show us your draft, try it, we will help and we won't judge a trier.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 10:12
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,304
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



More importantly, with an issue date of 15.11 you have to show us a defence ASAP
If the driver has been named, with full name and address of service, then you have no liability. That is defence point number 1. Ideally you will get, later on, a witness statement from the driver AND as much prpoof as THEY have that they appealed giving name address etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ThomasShelby
post Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 22:04
Post #17


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,211



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 10:12) *
More importantly, with an issue date of 15.11 you have to show us a defence ASAP
If the driver has been named, with full name and address of service, then you have no liability. That is defence point number 1. Ideally you will get, later on, a witness statement from the driver AND as much prpoof as THEY have that they appealed giving name address etc.


Hi Guys,

Honestly thank you for helping me out, means a lot. I have attempted to write up a defence which i have to send off tomorrow, please see it and give me your feedback.

"I as the defendant deny any or all allegations against me I do not believe I am responsible for any of the eight parking charge notices listed on the particulars of the claim.

First, although I am the registered keeper of the car. I was not driving the car on the dates of those offences. My friend Mohammed Ibrahim was, he has been named as the driver at the time of the claims along with the address of service. I have no liability. He is on record as taking full responsibility for parking there. Initially he had appealed the tickets and Vehicle Control Services Ltd should have a letter from him on record with the invoices.

Mohammed Ibrahim was at the time of the offences a legal resident of 49 Regency House, Queens Road, Coventry, CV1 3DA. He rented this property from the estate agents (Coopers). The letting agent advised him they were not issuing parking permits but that he could use the car park at the property. He was given a key fob to open the gate to the to the car park for this purpose. Ibrahim could park other cars there with no issue on multiple occasions.

I had not received any correspondence from the claimant. The first correspondence received was a Claim form dated 15th November 2017.

This claim is a mistake based on Vehicle Control Services believing the wrong person was driving the car at the time.

The claimant has not followed the pre-action protocol.
I believe the facts stated in this Defence statement are true."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 10:08
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,304
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



ITs not ideal. Its short but gets in teh main point - that the driver has been named

VCS do not use POFA to hold the keeper liable anyway, but DO you have any proof YOU told VCS who the driver was??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 18:51
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,428
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Your defence needs paragraph numbering for a start, then you should email it to the CCBCAQ email address (Google it).

How about this, which includes a point about the signs not forming any agreed contract, and the charges not being processed in compliance with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. You should reformat this in Times Roman 12 point, with 1.5 line spacing.



IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No. DXXXXXXX

Between:


Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
Mr XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

___________

DEFENCE
__________



1. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material dates.

3. On all material dates, the Defendant's friend Mohammed Ibrahim was the driver. Not only has he already been named as the driver, but his address for service was provided to the Claimant on more than one occasion, when he appealed. He is on record as taking full responsibility for parking there, and as such this Claimant is already fully aware that the Defendant is not liable.

4. Mr Ibrahim was at the time, a resident of 49 Regency House, Queens Road, Coventry, CV1 3DA. He rented this property from the Agents (Coopers), who advised him that parking permits were not being issued, nor were they needed, but that he could use the car park at the property. He was given a key fob to open the gate to the to the car park for this purpose, and he was at all times fully authorised to park.

5. It is denied that the driver was in breach of any parking conditions or was not authorised to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the resident. It is denied that the driver was under any obligation to display a permit at any time, or to pay penalties to a third party (the Claimant) for non-display of same. There are a number of authorities which support this position.

6. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

7. It is denied that any relevant contract or obligation existed between the Claimant and the driver. This is because no offer was communicated by the Claimant, effectively or at all, that was capable of acceptance by the driver, expressly, by conduct, or at all.

8. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
8.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the Defendant was the driver on all/any material dates. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is limited to pursuing the Defendant under the strict provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("the POFA").
8.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA, the Claimant must demonstrate that:
8.2.1. there was a 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
8.2.2. it has followed the required deadlines and wording as set out in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

9. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of Parliament for parking events on private land, they would have made such requirements part of the POFA, which makes no such provision.

10. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his primary defence above, inadequate.
10.1 The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
10.1.2. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the consumer, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
10.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 distinguished.
10.3 Third party terms on a sign cannot override the existing rights, parking easements or express grants, which cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted.
10.4 The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

11. The Claimant has not complied with the relevant Pre-Action Protocol. The Defendant has not had the opportunity to comply. The Defendant received no pre-action correspondence from the Claimant. The first correspondence received was a Claim form.

12. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. When Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier in the particulars of claim. The Defendant should have the opportunity to consider the full particulars/evidence, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this Defence.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.



.......................................
(Defendant)


......................
(Date)


This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 19:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 20:13
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,043
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Citing cases in a defence is bad form. They should be presented at trial, via a skeleton if helpful or ordered.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 23rd May 2018 - 01:02
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.