CEL B2B ANPR PCN Claimform - defended but court errored - going for set aside - Greyfriars Car Park Priory Road Bedford MK40 1BY ***Claim Discontinued***

[FTMDave]

I've been on the site for seven years, and until recently there had been a 100% record with set asides in private parking company cases.

Recently however three set asides were not granted, in one case it was clearly the Cagger's fault, in the other two there was just a rubbish judge.

So set asides are granted a lot more than they are not granted, as that is usually in the interests of justice - but there is no guarantee.

As others have said, we need to see your draft application and the defence.  However, from a first glance, your defence is very weak as the fleecers will try to say you should have named the driver, and this point needs to be tackled.

Can you please also upload the original PCN.

 

[FTMDave]

5 hours ago, Jenny21 said:

The first correspondence we got was their Final reminder, at which point we replied explaining that a customer had been driving and identifying her.  The customer also confirmed in writing that it was was hers.

Excellent.  So you're in the clear.

Well before litigation the charlatans were told they were threatening to sue the wrong person, you identified the right person, the right person owned up, but the imbeciles insisted on suing the wrong person.

In their diseased minds it will be because your appeal was "too late" which will be irrelevant to the court, and in any case the "too late" was because they were incapable of understanding a double digit address, bless them.

Yep, go for set aside, and when you do so request that the spivs be ordered to pay the £275 due to their unreasonable conduct for deliberately suing the wrong person.

However, that is for the morrow.  As everyone else has said, please upload all previous communications.  The more info we have, the more the advice is likely to be correct.  

[FTMDave]

You have a magnificent case, made even better by this news that the fleecers won't turn up in court.

However, there is the danger that you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not arguing the case properly before the court.

We need to see, in particular, the documentation where you and the driver informed the fleecers of who was driving, your application for set aside, and the court order of what to prepare for 2 October.  Bankfodder did ask on 1 August.

[FTMDave]

This certainly works.  I use it regularly for work  https://www.ilovepdf.com/compress_pdf

 

[FTMDave]

Yes, the N244 isn't a disaster but it could easily have been so much better and I'm bemused as to why you didn't come here earlier. 

I'm at work now but will have a careful read through everything later and be back on the forum this evening. 

Right, it's there in black & white that you told the fleecers the identity of the driver on 24 November 2022 but they ignored you and sued the wrong person.

The judge will need to be convinced of two things.

1.  Why you didn't defend when you had the chance.

2.  That you have a reasonable chance of defending the claim during a full hearing.

Your chances of winning were already high, but the fleecers' non-attendance just about guarantees it, as dx says.

A set aside hearing normally takes about 15 minutes, so just be very brief and to the point.  No waffle.

Tell the judge that you would like to briefly explain (1) how the default judgement came about, and (2) also to explain that you have a good defence.  (1) Explain briefly about the defence mess-up.  (2) Then say you were not the driver, you have cooperated with the claimant and supplied details of the driver, but the claimant insists on suing the wrong person.

Assuming that goes well, ask for your £275 costs against CEL because of their unreasonable conduct in deliberately suing the wrong person.  This should have been in your WS, but, oh well.  The judge is highly unlikely to agree, but nothing ventured ...

[FTMDave]

dx is spot on so keep your arguments as succinct as possible as explained three posts above.

The judge's "default" position will be to grant the set aside but to deny the £275.

Your argument to get the £275 back makes sense but it's a real pity it's not included in the WS in a little section with COSTS as the title for clarity for the judge (rather than all the waffle that is included instead).

Indeed it's a pity you didn't come here from the start as you would never be at this stage, you would have defended on-line with MCOL like everyone else in every other PPC thread, and there would have been no question of rejected defence or CCJ.  Please learn from this for the future.

So - fingers crossed - when the judge grants set aside immediately pop up and say you ask for costs as the court made a mistake.  If the judge rejects your explanation say you request costs from the fleecers as they deliberately sued the wrong person.

[FTMDave]

That is an amazing result - well done!

I've been on this site for seven years, and I've never once seen a judge make the fleecers pay the set aside fee.

Brilliant result!

[FTMDave]

I'm just evilly reading the correspondence where the cheeky gets say they will consent to set aside if you pay them £135.  Well you didn't.  And they got stuck with the £275 costs.  Ho!  Ho!  Ho!

I see you're out for revenge, and breach of GDPR would be one avenue but ... they went after a company rather than a private individual and presumably used the business address rather than the director's home address, so that looks a non-starter.

You have indirectly got revenge by persuading the judge to make them pay £275. A first in all the years I've been here.  Well done!

Please come back and let us know the situation in 14 days' time.

If they don't pay you by then you can send the bailiffs round to them

 

[FTMDave]

But, but, but - they said they would still continue with the case even if you got the set aside.  Theirs was not a "might".  They said they would definitely pursue you.

Take that saddos!

Remember they still owe you £275.  Please let us know if they pay, or if they don't pay come back here once the 14 days are up.