CCJ for Parking ticket Total Car Parks - is this legal

Hi Guys,

I have been issued with a notice of CCJ by Gladstones Solicitors on behalf of Total Car Parks for £285.43.

I have checked the record and this is true.

Is this legal for them to do for such an inflated amount in comparison to any parking charge?

And can I contest this CCJ at all?

On Gladstones letter to me - it states that If I fail to pay they have been instructed to pursue me with either a county court warrant of control, a high court writ of control, attachment of earnings or an information order.

Alternatively transfer the matter to an enforcement agency for recovery and incur additional costs - How can they do this if the CCJ is registered anyway?

Thanks for any advice.

What's the history to this? If you didn't receive he original claim, or didn't respond then you may be able to get the judgement set aside. That will give you a chance to defend, and to challenge the value of the claim as well.

I have not responded to any of the original claims or letters.

today I have sent a letter reply to gladstone solicitors and copied this reply alongside an N244 form to the county court business centre to get the CCJ set aside.

The content of my letter reply came from watching this youtube video which taught me a lot and helped my understand the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otOvAymtO6M&ab_channel=ObservationDeck

Have you heard back from your N244?  While you're waiting it would be advisable to get your defences organised.  If the claimant objects to the set aside it may go to a hearing, and the court will want to see that you have an arguable defence.  If you're using material from that Youtube video then make sure you discard any of the US material, and take care with their discussion of Council parking tickets as their legal basis is different from the private ticket you are dealing with.

I Havent heard back from the n244 as this was only sent today.

I dont believe that there is any US material in the video as it is very much from UK Law origins.

In the video they discuss a response to the council - however, they explain that this can be applied to any organisation that claims to charge, fine, enter into contract unlawfully as per the bills of exchange act.

any advice/support you have in regard to getting my defences organised would be much appreciated as this is new ground for me.

Thanks

Round about 8:00 it goes through US legislation, then at 10:00 give a definition of fraud which doesn't correspond with UK (or US) law.  And references to definitions "in other jurisdictions".  You just need to stick to the UK relevant material, and be aware that neither Total Car Parks nor Gladstones are a public body.

Your defence will depend on the facts so we'd need to know a little bit more.  What was alleged, was it overstaying in a free car park, parking without permit, misuse of reserved bay etc etc?  And importantly did you at any stage indicate who had been driving at the time?

Ohh ok - I really appreciate your support and pointing that out.

In my haste I did write and send a letter to both gladstone and to the court alongside the N244 for yesterday with an notice to withdraw

I have never replied to any correspondence or said who was driving.

The PCN initially sent to me was for staying in a car park without paying...

OK so was the PCN the first notification, no windscreen notice at the time?  And presumably the PCN was marked "Notice to Keeper" or similar.  If that's the case then to pursue the keeper they need to comply with POFA Schedule 4.  Have read through it because if they've not complied in terms of the content of the PCN or the timings, then they don't have the right to claim against the keeper. The exact paragraphs will depend on whether or not there was an initial windscreen ticket (Notice to Driver).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

In their Particulars of Claim have they alleged that you were the driver, or are they sticking to keeper?

There was no windscreen ticket notice. It was from one of those carparks whereby they take your registration from a camera.

Forgive my naivity - Im not sure how to see the particulars. Ive checked my credit file and paid for a report from trust online - but neither say what the allegation is/was or offence. Just that is says a court judgment was approved and not disputed.

However I was only made aware that there was a judgment 19th September via letter dated 10th september from gladstone solicitors on behalf of total carpark management

Did you get the original claim form? If not the don't worry, it will be one of your grounds for applying for set aside. The claim will have a section "Particulars of claim" where they describe in outline what they are claiming and why.

If you didn't reply to the claim either because you didn't receive it or for any other reason, the claimant will have applied for a "judgement in default". But it sounds like you didn't get that either. Could they have given a wrong address to the court? Is the address on the car's registration correct?

all addresses would be correct as the car is registered to me as the keeper.

I didnt get the original claim form at all which is strange to me so I saw no particulars of claim.

There was no form that looked like it came from the court - only a letter that was from gladstones with some sketchy looking court information on it - more of a copy.

I havent kept any of the correspondence ive been sent - which could be a mistake but I read everything in full.

If you have the claim number you may be able to get a copy from the court, but may be as well just to see how your set aside application goes. You would definitely have got something from the court, probably from the Northampton County Court Business Centre, but possibly from another court or hearing centre.

Ok thank you for that. i will try and get in touch with the county court business centre and see if I can get a copy.

Hi guys. I had the appointment for the CCJ to be set aside today and Im gobsmacked at the way it was handled by the judge; Did I stand a chance anyway?/ did I approach this wrong?/ was i set up to fail?

first thing the judge said to me was he's read both my statement as the defendant and the claimants statement. He then said its my job as the applicant to set aside to convince him that it should be.

This was confusing to me as my statement had 6 points in it of why the CCJ should be set aside. of which none were addressed.

The claimant did not attend - i asked for the case to be dismissed without prejudice for that reason and the judge basically said he doesnt care - very flippant.

after the initial chat the judge said - oh sorry i forgot to press record as this was by telephone - and then asked me to speak basically as to reasons why it should be set aside.

I was prepared and picked many holes in the claimants statement.

I asked for my statement to form the ridged foundation of my claim to set aside and for each point to be discussed.

To conclude - after complete silnce whilst i was speaking - the judge basically just read as if he was reading a script - referred to the claimants statement and evidence and the fact that I did not appeal this before now (as if this was bad), The judge did not reference any of my six points at all in his decision basically glossing over them as 'rambling'.

Ps - the claimants statement was 20 pages. mine was 3 pages.

- He then said that my statement was long and rambling and confusing, had no relevance and he didnt understand it.
- he also said that my explanation was confusing and he didnt understand me! and that the CCJ will not be set aside and literally said good morning put the phone down cutting me dead!

The whole episode was around 5 minutes.

my statement (summary)

Dear Sirs,

We do not know to whom to name as the recipient of this communication, as the sender failed in his/her duty of care and did not sign the document sent to XXXX at his address. The action of not signing the document sent to XXXX legally means that no living person has taken legal responsibility for the content of the document on behalf of Gladstone Solicitors or the client Total Car Park Management Limited - and the document or any previous documents couldn't be legally responded to. That very act of not signing the documents renders the documents 'void" and therefore non-legal and unusable in law under current legislation. Strike one. Deliberate deception.

This document will now be kept on file as physical presentable evidence, as it represents the criminal activities of the representatives of Gladstone Solicitors and their client Total Carpark Management - whether they are aware of this transgression or not. Ignorance of the law is no defence and all of the representatives of Gladstone Solicitors, and their client Total Carpark Management are now culpable under the current legislation because one individual failed to sign the document. This is a fact that must be understood. Strike two. Ignorance of current legislation.

The third grave error on previous documents and subsequent County Court Judgement which was obtained by Gladstone Solicitors is that the document is a Notice to Owner.
Under current legislation the owner of any motorised vehicle is the DVLA Swansea SA99 IBA, this means that someone at Total Car Park Management Limited had sent a Notice to Owner to the registered keeper and not the official owner. Strike three. Document
sent to the wrong address.

The competence levels demonstrated by the representatives of Total Car Park Management are appalling. XXXX is the official registered keeper not the owner. The Traffic Management Act 2004 referred to in correspondence by Gladstone Solicitors Limited and its client Total Carpark Management Ltd - is an Act of HM Parliament and Governments PLC, a recognised Unlimited Corporation or an all for profit business. An Act, which is not law in the UK, it is not even referred to as law as it is an Act of a Corporation or an all for profit business, or policy, but it is not a law. Strike four. Displays lack of understanding and competence regarding what is the difference between law and legislation.

Acts and Statutes of HM Parliament and Governments PLC, can only be given force of law by the
consent of the governed by those who have agreed to Act's and Statutes of HM Parliament and Governments PLC. Therefore, there is a mandatory legal requirement under current legislation that the governed must have given their consent legally, which can be physically presented as fact before the Acts and Statutes of HM Parliament, and Governments PLC can be given force of law.

Not Law, Not enforceable. 63.5 million people in the UK have not legally entered into those agreements (8 million plus) in full knowledge and understanding and of their own free will. An agreement which must be kept on the public record for the Acts and Statutes of HM Parliament and Governments PLC to be given an action which involves force...or force of law.

The answers to the questions are in the understanding of the words used to implement an act of force...or Law.

The next item we come to is a demand for payment. A demand f payment without a signed bill is a direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. Strike Five. The Bills of Exchange Act of 1882 is based upon a pre-existing commercial contract or agreement.

See Bills of exchange act of 1882. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/61

Profiteering through deception is an act of fraud. Strike six.  See Fraud Act 2006. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents


Insisting or demanding payment without a pre-existing commercial arrangement which is based on presentable fact in the form of a commercial agreement is an act of deception. Payment is a commercial activity.


You have been served LEGAL NOTICE

XXXX has no recognisable legal means to respond to a demand for payment without a signed bill, which is based upon a pre-existing commercial contract or agreement simply/because; No standing commercial contract or arrangement or agreement between  XXXX and Gladstone Solicitors or their client Total Car Park Management exists.
If XXXX was to willingly comply with the demand for payment without a commercially recognised bill, then XXXX would have knowingly given consent and conspired to a commercially fraudulent action. This in turn would make XXXX culpable under current regulation for that action. XXXX will not knowingly create that liability against him or create that culpability.

The very presentation of the documents and now subsequent Count Court Judgement that was obtained that we are responding to from Gladstone Solicitors and their client Total Car Park Management, which is also a document that will be kept on file for future presentation as physical evidence, which is presentable physical evidence and a list of transgressions against the currently held legislation.

These same documents supplied by Gladstone Solicitors and their client Total Car Park Management recognises that there may be, or has been, a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority. This is the only saving grace on these documents which allows for a honourable withdrawal of the proceedings implemented illegally by the enforcement authority. This document is representation as to the procedural impropriety the enforcement authority and as stated at the outset of the document, gives an opportunity to withdraw due to the procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority.

This process is also a matter of complying with current legislation without which XXXX would be unsuccessful if he were to pursue legal proceeding against the Enforcement Authority and of the members of Total Car Park Management.

As the opportunity to withdraw has now been presented to the Enforcement Authority Gladstone Solicitors  and the members of Total Car Park Management under a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority, should the above mentioned not take the opportunity to make an honourable withdrawal and confirm such in writing to XXXX, then XXXX will be left with no other option in the future but to start legal proceedings against the Enforcement Authority and the members of Total Car Park Management.

The content of this document will be in the public domain in the next few days as there is no agreement in place that is legally binding of which to prevent this.

XXXX l does not expect to be hearing from the Enforcement Authority and or, the members of Total Car Park Management again unless it is in the form of a written confirmation of withdrawal of proceedings.

No further correspondence will be entered into regarding this manner WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all natural and Unalienable Rights Reserved


For and on behalf of XXXX

XXXX reserves the right to use force to defend himself, his family and his family home, which he has an unalienable right to do so.

Response to this notice should be forwarded within 10 days of receipt of this notice to the postal address known as;

XXXX
No assured value, No liability. No Errors & Omissions Accepted.
All Rights Reserved.
WITHOUT RECOURSE-NON-ASSUMPSIT

You have been served LEGAL NOTICE

Please note what follows I'm NOT legally trained. Based on what my experience has been over past few years over utilities both mine & from others, your overall statement above would appear correct.

So

mackenzie_molly wrote:Did I stand a chance anyway?

Probably not!

mackenzie_molly wrote:did I approach this wrong?

Probably not!

mackenzie_molly wrote:was i set up to fail?

Highly likely YES!

I know I'm not much help in terms of your remedy but....

After a bit of thought I decided to reply, mainly for the benefit of anyone else finding themselves in the same situation, and hopefully reading this while their options are still open.

mackenzie_molly wrote:Did I stand a chance anyway?

Approached properly, then post likely yes. Gladstones are incompetent even by the standards of the private parking industry and they lose more cases than they win.  I haven't seen any of the relevant material in this case, but you refer to TMA 2004, and "Notice to Owner", both of which relate to decrim council tickets and are completely irrelevant to private parking.  If those references came from Gladstones then they were hopelessly lost.

mackenzie_molly wrote:did I approach this wrong?

I'm sorry to say that I think you did. The recommended approach is to stick to the issues that a court will find relevant, starting with the alleged parking event, signage, terms and conditions etc, contractual rights, then looking at the process - did it or did it not comply with POFA 2012. These arguments would have been better raised as the original defence, but could still have been raised in the set aside application, instead of all the material about signatures, fraud, non-consent to statute, Bills of Exchange Act etc, none of which have any relevance.

mackenzie_molly wrote:was i set up to fail?

Not necessarily.  As noted private parking companies and their solicitors can be remarkably incompetent. However but a civil court does not test the case itself, it arbitrates between claim and defence. In the absence of any defence they were virtually certain to win.

When you apply for a set aside you are not making your case as to why the original ticket was issued. You are making a case as to why the CCJ should not be pursued. eg.g claimant never contacted you or such.

The judge who hears your claim can not consider (its not in their jurisdiction) any mitigating factors as to why the original ticket was made, they can only base their decision upon the CCJ and nothing more.

It depends on the rules under which set aside is being applied for. In many cases the court will require there to be a real prospect of defence. In this regard the judge is not considering whether he thinks the defence will win, but will be looking to see that relevant and arguable points are made.

Thank you for your replies guys. A lesson learned definitely re the different replies to private parking companies and council.

Are there any templates available in regard to responding to private parking company letters?

I cannot remember if this covers private parking,but worth a listen.
https://youtu.be/otOvAymtO6M

That's the same video as linked in Post 3

For the OP, I'm not aware of any generic templates for private parking, the points raised depend on the facts in each particular case. The unfortunate fact is that these penalties are in fact enforceable in law, so can't be defended on a single legal point. Instead we have to show where the parking company has made an error and thus made the charge unenforceable in this particular case.

flyingfish wrote:The unfortunate fact is that these penalties are in fact enforceable in law.

Not true - there's a big difference between lawful and legal. All parking penalties issued by these private land pirates are unlawful. The BOVAT method is the best way to deal with these unlawful parking penalties before escalation to a CCJ.

mitch wrote:Not true - there's a big difference between lawful and legal. All parking penalties issued by these private land pirates are unlawful.

You can argue terminology but that distinction is not recognised by the courts, so it's of little comfort to someone who's been to court and lost, and very poor advice to someone facing court proceedings.

mitch wrote:The BOVAT method is the best way to deal with these unlawful parking penalties before escalation to a CCJ.

In an earlier thread we went through all this VAT business, looking at the actual legislation around VAT invoices and concluded that there was no mileage.  VAT invoice only being required if both parties are VAT registered and the invoice relates to supply that is not outside the scope.  For some reason the OP backtracked and used the VAT argument anyway. He updated the thread as follows but we don't know how things progressed after that ..

Update, so the Boevat approach didn't work, case studies hasn't put them off, had a notice from the court, submitted a defence.

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t4139-private-residential-underground-parking-charge-notice

And here a different OP failed with both VAT and Bills of Exchange for a Council ticket ..
https://goodf.forumotion.com/t4710p50-boevat-council-pcn-traffic-tribunal

People should be fighting these tickets, both Council and especially private ones, and plenty of people do win. But I don't understand why people persist in recommending methods that have been proven time and again to have no merit. Let's concentrate on the successful one.