Appeal Refused - What Now?

northseajoe

arabesque_101 wrote: »

Northseajoe, can you scan your notice to keeper after removing any identifing info such as notice number, time of day, etc. Then upload to a free image sharing website such as photobucket.com and then paste the link here.

Also, tell us how many days there were between the date of the parking event, and the date the notice to keeper was received.

Thanks Arabesque. Before I enter the wacky world of scanning and editing, can I just check: is a 'notice to keeper' the same as the 'parking enforcement notice' that I got from CEL?

If so: Parking event 8 May, parking enforcement notice received 16 May.

northseajoe

I've never used this before, so please tell me if it works/doesn't...

http://s681.photobucket.com/user/mahrud/media/parkingenforcementnotice2.jpg.html

Skunkontoast

That looks like a standard poor Civil enforcement ltd NTK. I'm only a newbie but as far as I know and have read its junk because the small print is on the re!ovableayment slip at the bottom which doesn't count as the notice to keeper as its designed to be removed.
Don't hold me to that though I'd wait for another more experienced member to confirm

Coupon-mad

Skunkontoast wrote: »

That looks like a standard poor Civil enforcement ltd NTK. I'm only a newbie but as far as I know and have read its junk because the small print is on the re!ovableayment slip at the bottom which doesn't count as the notice to keeper as its designed to be removed.
Don't hold me to that though I'd wait for another more experienced member to confirm

You are right Skunkontoast. The CEL NTK letters are not worded as per the POFA 2012 paragraph 9 so the keeper cannot be held liable. So I reiterate my advice before:

THE KEEPER IS NOT LIABLE IF THE NTK ISN'T COMPLIANT OR WAS LATE! IF SO, DO NOT NAME THE DRIVER, KEEP IT IN YOUR HANDS AND YOU ARE NOT LIABLE (AND CEL ALWAYS LOSE IN COURT).

northseajoe

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You are right Skunkontoast. The CEL NTK letters are not worded as per the POFA 2012 paragraph 9 so the keeper cannot be held liable. So I reiterate my advice before:

THE KEEPER IS NOT LIABLE IF THE NTK ISN'T COMPLIANT OR WAS LATE! IF SO, DO NOT NAME THE DRIVER, KEEP IT IN YOUR HANDS AND YOU ARE NOT LIABLE (AND CEL ALWAYS LOSE IN COURT).

Thanks, Coupon-mad (and skunkontoast). Now, let me check: does this apply even if I was the driver? We genuinely can't remember.

Dee140157

And how would they know if you had been the driver, unless they have facial recognition software and the faces & details of everybody in this country? The point is you have the civil right within law not to name the driver. It is not a criminal offence where law is different.

northseajoe

Dee140157 wrote: »

And how would they know if you had been the driver, unless they have facial recognition software and the faces & details of everybody in this country? The point is you have the right within law not to name the driver. It is not a criminal offence where law is different.

Good point, Dee. My concern was fuelled by (i) paranoia and (ii) an experience of law courts which is restricted to US TV soap operas. I was visualising a glamourous DA replaying CCTV footage and revealing to a gasping jury that I was at the wheel....

northseajoe

Two years later... a Letter Before Action has arrived from CE Ltd. I've drafted a reply, based on my muddled reading of the Stickies. Could someone sensible sanity-check this for me, please?

....
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Dear Sir[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]For the Personal Attention of [redacted][/FONT]




[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This letter refers to PCN [redacted]. Thank you for your letter dated 5 July 2016, received today. [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Firstly, you should note that - for the reasons outlined in previous correspondence - I regard the above PCN as a speculative invoice and I robustly dispute this claim.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Secondly, you should note that although your letter states it is 'in accordance with Pre-Action Conduct and Protocol', it clearly isn't. To assist you, I have attached a summary of the Protocol Guidance. [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Please ensure that a qualified person reads the details of this claim, and responds to this letter in a professional manner, providing specific information relating to the intended legal proceedings. This is a very specific case - PLEASE do not rely on a generic FAQ-type reply. This will not meet the requirements of Practice Direction, and will not enable us to move this matter forward.

Finally, you should note that if you refuse to comply with the Practice Direction, this will result in an immediate referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the Principles contained in the SRA Handbook. [/FONT]






[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Yours sincerely[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

If it's not from a solicitor you can't threaten the SRA, but is it from 'Michael Schwartz'? Loads of threads about him and CEL, search 'Schwartz' because you need to know about him (also read the Parking Prankster's blogs about Michael Schwartz, easy to Google.

And see other threads like this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5490356

and read this pepipoo one where a reply to a LBC (from a legal firm re Excel Parking, who also do not use the POFA wording so can't hold keepers liable) is discussed:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106157&st=20&start=20

That's a direct link to page two but there are 3 pages to that thread, relevant to your case as it is a similar stage, similar issue.

northseajoe

Thank you so much for your reply, Coupon-mad. I take your point about the SRA threat, but the answer to your question ('is it from Michael Schwartz') is 'dunno'.

The correspondence comprises an unsigned front page with no name; then a two-page 'Particulars of Claim' ending with a 'Statement of Truth' which is unsigned but dated, over the name of Michael Schwartz.