Hello All I've received these letters in quite quick succession. ( Will attach one at a time) However, I have never owned or been the registered keeper of this car, let alone not ever having driven this car ?? What's the best way to reply to this please? DCBL 02 Dec 22-compressed.pdf DCBL 22 Jan 23-compressed.pdf DCBL 15 Jan 23-compressed.pdf

Hi FTMDave There has been no reply from them as yet !! ??

Hi dx100uk. I've not been able to find any threads? Would you mind pointing me in the right direction? They are literally sending me text messages every day? Should I write to DVLA & PDCS or neither?? How do I get them to stop?

Hi Caggers I do hope I've posted in the correct place for this question I've received a letter & being bombarded with text messages from Pastdue Credit Solutions (PDCS). Don't know how they got my mobile number? They are demanding £80 payment ( on behalf of DVLA ) for vehicle tax for August 2022, BUT .... I scrapped the car end of May 2022?! I have done all the correct process in sending off my section of the V5. The person who took the car had the rest of the V5. However, I have NEVER received anything from the DVLA about this??

FTMDave - Yes, the letter has been sent & proof of posting retained. Brassnecked, they will & do exploit every avenue they can !!! Just thankful to have found this site & the help received.

Please can I invite anything else anyone would like to add ? Seriously thinking about the N164.

FTMDaveBank Windscreen PCN - parked in BB bay without BB- Merry Hill Shopping Centre My friend is still seething. The person who was driving the vehicle at the time has also offered to step forward. If my friend does decide to lodge the N164, would we be able to introduce the following:- 1) In the set aside hearing, The Claimant acknowledged they were in possession of a copy of the letter sent to the claimant which included a copy of the valid BB, therefore:- F.3 Appeals - had been lodged. In considering appeals parking operators must recognise the following as mitigating circumstances warranting cancellation of a parking charge, subject to evidence being provided: e) where a Blue Badge has not been displayed but the holder of the Blue Badge supplies a copy of the Blue Badge they hold that would have been valid at the time and in the circumstances identified in the notice of parking charge i.e. that the holder was in the vehicle whether or not as the driver); 2) The disabled bay only had a symbol on the floor, not a pole defining the parking. Nevertheless, a disabled parking space is inoperable on private land & not enforceable in law. 3) The driver at the time of the "alleged contravention", has attended the hearing & willing to revert the case to them, as they had not received such notices of a private land contravention. 4) Even though both parties had sent each other evidence they would each be relying on at the set aside hearing, neither party had received the documents. Therefore, the hearing should have been adjourned to allow each party to receive & respond to what was being submitted by each party Anything else anyone would like to add in attempt to set out a basis of appeal would be gratefully received.

I've done a little digging & found this article dated 9th Sept 2022 - Watch out! Private parking code of practice scrapped - The New Stour And Avon Magazine STOURAVONMAGAZINE.CO.UK Parking rules and fines have always been strict. But this isn’t an excuse to park illegally. There are rules on when and where you can park on UK roads and car parks. Here’s what you need to know. The Government has... On reading this, it does appear the government has opened up web to allow motorists to be again exploited by these scammers !!!

Thank you both tremendously. Because of all the valuable help & knowledge you have imparted with me, I have set up a regular monthly payment to the site. I have also encouraged my daughter to join. Guys, I'm sorry to ask this, but the court case I have just lost - was because the BB was supposedly "not visible", yet the judge sided with the fleecers. I've been told there is no point in appealing (Even though the amount, to include he fleecers court costs, is over £500) as another judge will support the other judge in an appeal?? There are only pictures on the ground at Merry HIll centre & BB are not supposed to be enforceable on Private Land?? The BB had slid off the dash onto the passenger seat, The fleecers had submitted a "supposed" picture of the interior of the car, where there was no BB visible, but we gave sent the picture of the valid BB of the person in the car at the time, but they would not accept this?? They showed me the "supposed" picture of the interior on a tablet. All you could see in the picture was the door handle & part of the passenger seat & the rest was black, not at all visible. I don't believe it was the interior of the car we were in on the day.

We have contacted the local Royal mail office, but initially they put it down to when our usual Posty was away & it was a relief that was making the error. However, I have witness our usual Postie delivering our neighbours post to us. When I challenged the Posty about it, his excuse was (because the other address is empty) the post is piling up so the Posty thought it better to leave us their mail !!!. I asked about delivering our mail to the empty address? Posty told me it will have been in error when just glanced the door number!!! I told Posty what had been caused by merely "glancing", not with just this but with other important information. Posty apologised, yet we are still getting the other addresses post & I have had to chase other documents we have not received. Clearly to conversation I had with Posty has not had any impact, so I am waiting to see Posty again. I shall make it clear this time & explain there will not be a 3rd conversation, so if Posty does not pay attention then I will put in a formal complaint. Luckily majority of companies I have been dealing with, when I have explained what has happened, have been obliging & sent the documents via email.

dx100uk - So it's probably best as FTMDave has said about appeal and quote the government CoP at them?

FTMDave - That's absolutely right !!

Homer67 It was my daughter's car & she does live in Scotland. Just so I get this right in my brain, As she lives in Scotland, but the PCN was issued in England, the PCN does not stand? I didn't think the BB was enforceable on Private Land? However, as FTMDave knows & from experience, these fleecers will twist anything to get a payment, so am thinking an appeal may be the way to go, unless of course there would be no chance of action due to my daughter living in Scotland? For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions.... 1 The date of infringement? 31/12/2022 2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] NO So as there is no POFA in Scotland, they should not be able to obtain the keeper details? Am I right? If they do get these, would this be a breach of the Freedom Of Information Act? PCN January.pdf

At least we tried. Will have to mark this up to experience, In the grand scheme of thing of things at least I have learned how to attack these horrid fleecers. Will just have to wait & see if they enforce it?? Thank you for all your help with this.

My Daughter, visiting from Scotland, took her Mom (my disabled wife) shopping. My wife ( holder of the Blue Badge) forgot to display it!! Of course there was a PCN attached to the car on their return. Needless to say, my daughter & me are not very happy with her. I've attached the PCN. Given my friends last encounter with these scammers, I want to stop them before they take it further. Preferably without paying the extortionate £50 for a genuine error!! How is it best to reply to this please?

dx100uk - Therefore, regardless of whether they could see the Blue Badge or nor was really irrelevant?? FTMDave - I appreciate all the info & guidance already given. If anything, this is a massive learning curve. Anything we can take from this personally or for the benefit of others on the site is a total bonus. The original CCJ was Septermber 7th 2022. Which was what we were told in court. If you could flag up about the question about the N164 please. It would be very interesting to see if there is an avenue still open? Thank you

DX100, it was a Judge Lottery & was a judge who was completely bias on their behalf. FTMDave --- I note your comments about the CCJ still having 30 days to pay. Is this from the date of the Set Aside hearing? I've asked my friend for the figures breakdown, but as he has not received any of the paperwork from these horrid people, so he does not have anything showing the actual figures breakdown!! We only have the figures from what was said in court. When I asked for the appeal, I did say in this that the figures were excessive, but the judge never even acknowledged this submission. My only thoughts would be a SAR to gain this, which I'm quite happy to do. Do you think this is worth it?

My thoughts too FTMDave on the whole of your comments. Sadly, the person who was driving is not in a position to pay the CCJ in full, so this now remains against my friend. Just now want others to know if they have any dealings with Merry Hill Shopping Centre & this company, don't use anything about them 'potentially' not having a contract to operate. I say potentially, as I never had the privilege of seeing this alleged contract !! My only other thought was if I write to the scammers asking if they set aside the CCJ & I will pay the amount in full for my friend, so he can pay me what he can afford on a monthly basis. What are your thoughts, is it worth a try?

UPDATE:- So we went to the Set Aside hearing on 5th Jan. The neighbour asked me to speak on his behalf. Not good news I'm afraid. The judge would not accept the following:- 1) The badge to have been on proper display. 2) Other than one letter & the judgement notice to have been received. Even though we took the other persons mail which had been received to his address. The claimant said they had sent their submissions for the set aside hearing to him (they claimed) on the 9th Dec, but he had not received these either, so again they had gone to the other address !! 3) Even if he set it aside, based on the draft defence there would be no real chance of defending the action. 4) That he wasn't the driver at the time. The judge asked who the driver was at the time. I advised I was under no legal obligation to disclose this. His response was " I will ask you once more", so I repeated the same. The claimant stated this was a freedom of information situation & therefore the person who was driving at the time we should disclose details of? 5) There were photo's which the claimant alleged were of the inside of the car. I was allowed to view these on the solicitors iPad. The judge stated he could not see the badge on the seat. We could not even make out any detail of the picture he was looking at as it was completely black, with just a slight bit of reflection off the inside door handle !! My neighbour didn't believe this was a picture of his car. I was quite astounded they had the nerve to take pictures of the interior of people's cars & feel this is some sort of privacy breach?? The Claimant's solicitor was in attendance. He had not received the copies of the draft defence etc I had sent to them, yet the judge accepted this can happen for the claimant. !! I had copies with me, so offered one to the claimant. The judge gave him time to read though before continuing with the hearing. The judge was going through the bundle they had sent in ( which we had not received & had no sight of as there was not a copy available to us ) In this was an alleged contract between Bank Park Management & INTU at Merry Hill Shopping Centre, allowing them to 'police' the car parks at the centre. I asked to appeal:- The judge heard the appeal within 10 mins of his summing up. I stated the wrong person was being pursued. He stated he had not misappropriated the law, there was no chance of a defence should a set aside be granted & this was based on the draft defence submitted. I advised the draft was as stated ' a draft' which was not in it's entirety, but he still denied the set aside. He said I could try an N164. ????? Now on top of the £350 they have already lodged against him, the judge awarded another £156 to the claimant for solicitors attendance !!! As neither party had received copies of what had been sent to the court, then I believe the judge should have adjourned the hearing to allow for this to be corrected. The person who was driving the car at the time ( a relative of his ) has said to put the N164 in & they will go to court with my neighbour to reveal it was the driver at the time. Is it really worth the risk? Your views would be really appreciated.

OK. Thank you both.

So do I have to show the draft defence or just the WS with the draft order for the set aside? Sorry for being confused by this ! There is no date stated on the notice of hearing for docs to be submitted ! Thought better get done before Xmas. I'm very comfortable with what you have but together FTMDave & very grateful.

So is this good enough do you think & is it in the correct order to submit:- ?? ######### Draft order###### Between Claimant xxxxxxxx -and- Defendant xxxxxxx Draft Order It is respectfully requested the that the Judgment dated xxxxxx claim number xxxxxxxx issued under Part 12 CPR be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.3. a/b. It is Ordered The Claim be set a side and the defendant be allowed to defend the claim Costs in this application Signed Dated. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- xxx & xxx Court BETWEEN xxx (Claimant) AND xxx (Defendant) Witness Statement of MR. xx Introduction: 1. I, Mr xxx, am the Defendant in this claim. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 2. In my statement, I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence section supplied in this bundle, referring to page and evidence numbers where appropriate. 3. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case which is xxx 4. I was not the driver of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to follow the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability. 5. I did not receive the original county court claim form, therefore had no opportunity to defend myself. I truly & firmly believe this was due to a postal error, as there is another address very similar to mine which is XXXXXXXXX. This address is not occupied, as the resident is deceased. I get the deceased person's mail & my mail goes to the other address to which there is no access. 6. I became aware of the County Court Judgement against me when I got the judgment decision, which I acted upon immediately by completing the N244. Locus Standi: 5. I became aware of the County Court Judgement against me when I got the judgment decision, which I acted upon immediately. 7. The Claimant is not the landowner. Therefore, as they have failed to show any such contract between the parties, they do not have the authority from the landowner to bring claims in their own name. I am requesting the original judgment XXXXXXXX, in the draft order, issued under Part 12 CPR be set aside pursuant to CPR 13 .3. a/b, be set aside. De Minimus: 8. The person in use of the vehicle at the time was the holder of a valid Blue Badge. The Blue Badge was put on display on the dashboard. However, on the person's return to the vehicle the Blue Badge had slid off the dashboard onto the passenger seat, but was still in a position to be viewed wholly. 9. It is contended that a thorough check through the windscreen & side windows took place and the Blue Badge must have been seen. Double Recovery: 10. As well as legal costs, The Claimant is seeking recovery of the original charge plus an additional costs described as “contractual costs and interest” or “Debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. (page 33, Exhibit 06) 10. Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery. ( DO I LEAVE 11. & 12. IN ??) 11. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.'' 12. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...'' 13. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14. 14. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4) 15. The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known that to claim in excessive a parking charges on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused. 16. I invite the Court to dismiss this Claim in its entirety. Statement Of Truth: 17. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

I've read through the thread & think I have an understanding of the process. From this I have put together the following, on which I would welcome any input in getting this right:- ######### Draft order###### Between Claimant xxxxxxxx -and- Defendant xxxxxxx Draft Order It is respectfully requested the that the Judgment dated xxxxxx claim number xxxxxxxx issued under Part 12 CPR be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.3. a/b. It is Ordered The Claim be set a side and the defendant be allowed to defend the claim Costs in this application Signed Dated. I did not receive the original county court claim form, therefore had no opportunity to defend myself. I truly & firmly believe this was due to a postal error, as there is another address very similar to mine which is XXXXXXXXX. This address is not occupied, as the resident is deceased. I became aware of the County Court Judgement against me when I got the judgment decision, which I acted upon immediately. If the set aside order is granted, I intend to defend the claim on the basis that: (1) The Claimant is suing the wrong person - I was not the driver of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to follow the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability. (2) Locus Standi - the Claimant is not the landowner; therefore, as set out in the draft order, I am requesting the original judgment XXXXXXXX issued under Part 12 CPR be set a side pursuant to CPR 13 .3. a/b, be set aside. (3) the Claimant is claiming the debt, legal costs and an extra invented sum as an attempt at double recovery which invalidates the whole claim.

Amazing FTMDAVE. Thank you for you help. I will read through the thread.