Free Traffic Legal Advice

In carpark at 11.26
Paid one hour 11.31
Extended 2 hours 12.31
Exited carpark 14.38

That's 7 mins over.

At the moment the focus is on the set aside, but, so that we don't forget about it...

The car was in the car park for 3 hours 12 minutes, and 3 hours parking was paid for. It's an overstay of 12 minutes that is being claimed, not 7. A small difference, but 12 minutes is outside the minimum grace period of 10 mins.

I don't think anyone's saying you can't dispute it. The problem is that you didn't dispute (defend) it in the ultimate discourse resolution service, the small claims track of the county court.

The problem is going be in getting the CCJ set aside. You have no argument other than use CPR 13.2 for a compulsory set aside. You can only rely on CPR 13.3 for a discretionary sent aside and the judge is going to want to know why you did not respond to both a PAP LoC and an N1SDT Claim Form sent through the CNCB.

As already advised, simply stating that you never received these two documents, which were issued by post, by two completely separate and independent organisations, is going to raise eyebrows. Whilst responding to the LoC is not an absolute requirement, responding to the N1SDT is.

Considering you don't deny receiving previous correspondence from the claimant, how are you able to convince the judge that, on the balance of probability, not receiving two separate legal documents sent independently by separate organisations, were not received?

You can state that whilst you cannot prove having received them, neither of those two organisations can prove posting or delivery of them, unless they evidence either a "proof of posting certificate" or a signature on delivery certificate. At least that argument may balance any probability decision.

If the judge can be convinced that if the neither the CNBC nor DCB Legal can prove the letters were posted or signed for and your claim that you did not receive either, then there is reason for them to set aside the CCJ under CPR 13.3. You then have to show that you have a reasonable chance of successfully defending the original claim.

Ok. Been looking back through all my documentation again. Please understand that this is now over three years and over 30 interactions by letter or email. I hadn't quite understood the difference between the Claim Letter and Letter of Claim until I read back.

I DID receive the Letter of Claim on 26 June in the post. I did reply to that using the online form referred to in that letter. I did so on 17 July. I did not pay, but in the form (which I can't access now) I provided this response.

"You have now sent a Letter Before Claim. However, your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and, again, fails to provide the photographic evidence which I requested as long ago as November 2021. It does not even say what the cause of action is. Nor does it contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.

This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.
I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action

2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper

3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)

5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim

6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver

7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed

8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)

9. a map of the boundary of the property

10. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information since as early as Nov 2021 yet your client has refused to provide it, saying that it will not do so until this matter reaches the court.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided"

OK. So you did receive the LoC from DCB Legal. You are saying that you never received the N1SDT Claim Form that is sent from the CNBC.

As you have evidence of having responded to everything else and as the CNBC will not be able to show "prof of posting", there is a possibility that it was not delivered. Whilst the claimant has not done anything wrong because they used your correct address, you may not get your application fee back.

The main thing is to get your CCJ set aside.

You say you used the response webform on the DCB Legal website to respond to the LoC. You have a copy of what you put in that response. Did you receive any response to your request for further information/documents?

What correspondence or emails did you receive from anyone after submitting the response/request to DCB Legal on 17th July?

Where have you been getting your advice from up to now?

FYI, I have discussed your case with a judge today and they reckon that what you have put in your N244 application should be sufficient. You don’t need a second witness statement or a draft order. The claimant never turns up to this sort of thing and only rarely files evidence. I would be amazed if judgement was not set aside.

...and the Overriding Objective.

Finally, the last two letters from DCBL in the last week have been to ask for my parking evidence and to chase the debt again. Given that I have paid for my N244 and this is now being dealt with by the court, should I engage with them?

Ok so I just checked. The letter on 20 November was from DCB Legal. They asked for my parking evidence. I did reply only to see if they had a copy of the N1SDT. They did and supplied it. I have not provided parking evidence to them.

On the same date (but posted) but only received  this week was a letter from Debt Collection Bailiff's (bit naughty to use DCBL Reference Number in the letter). It is titled DEBT RECOVERY REMINDER (Unpaid County Court Judgement). I have not responded to this at all.