CEL Ltd default CCJ! Pls help!

Lamilad

Wondering if I could deliver the letter to to the court by hand then.
And put a copy in the post for CEL.

Yep, nothing wrong with that

The_Deep

Jeff123 wrote: »

I am really !!!!ed off with CEL , they don't care if they wreck someone's life.
They don't even have a common decency to let me know the details of the claim they put against me?!!
I hope the judge will be able to see that and be punitive against them, for being inconsiderate and wasting court time!

Apparently, you need to be very assertive. There appears to be no definition of "unreasonable behaviour" and some judges sometimes take a very different, (and unreasonable), view of what does and does not fall into this category.

As you say, some people when receiving a PPC, become very distressed indeed, I suspect some have been driven to taking their own lives, others see it as a battle and sharpen their weapons.

I fear that this may stem from the pool from which CC judges are drawn. Middle class, with safe unadventurous lives, many/most trained as solicitors. What the CC s need is a few former SAS officers, diplomats, and entrepreneurs, not dry old conveyancors and divorce lawyers.

Jeff123

Lol......... this may have been the case with my judge. He didn't think it was right for him to
award me the refund of set aside fee from Cel.
I called the courts again yesterday and they told me that they are not sure if they have received anything from cel yet. The deadline was on Monday 4pm. I have to wait for further 2 days. Unfortunately I am away for a whole week, so will have to deal with this when I get back on Tuesday next week. I had a defence ready but couldn't post it online before I flew. I will post it on Tuesday night. I depend on your generosity with your wisdom to fight these idiots. I will fight back hard.
Just want to let you know that I really appreciate your help from all the people in this forum!
The PPCs must really hate you!

[Deleted User]

@TheDeep whilst you are no doubt pleased with your endeavours on behalf of the state, your attacks on my profession are wholly unjustified.

Most DJs do an excellent job within a very stretched court system. It is also not the fault of the DJs that the CPR contains limited guidance on unreasonable costs and (inevitably) that there is little superior court guidance on the point. Although a set aside is a different issue. Where there was defective service, costs should follow IMHO.

many/most trained as solicitors.

As supposed to what? Sheep Shearers? Whilst it is true most DJs are solicitors, that is no failing, it's a selected career path. Contrary to general public perception solicitors are not failed barristers and nor do judges (at any level) use gavels.

this may stem from the pool from which CC judges are drawn. Middle class,

It remains true of professions as diverse as law, journalism and the diplomatic corps that there is an abundance of middle classes. But i'm sure you were trying to make a point somewhere...

What the CC s need is a few former SAS officers, diplomats, and entrepreneurs...

Donald Trump is an entrepreneur, but I think he's already shown poor judgement and a lack of understanding of US law. What makes you think an English entrepreneur would be any different?

System

@Johnersh you have to realise that TD just likes to wind people up.

And personally I'd hate to see SAS officers, diplomats, and entrepreneurs in courts unless they have the ability to see the strict logic of the law.

As a nation we are known for our legal services and expertise but no-one is beating our door down for SAS officers or entrepreneurs. As regards diplomat staff, they all appear to have been laid off and are soaking up the gin somewhere warm.

Umkomaas

soaking up the gin somewhere warm.

Benidorm is awash with it.

[Deleted User]

@Johnersh you have to realise that TD just likes to wind people up.

I know. But it had been a long day and I was already up one beer....:D

Jeff123

As expected i haven't heard from CEL but i also haven't heard from the court. I was expecting
to receive a letter or something to let me know if the claimant has submitted amended details of the claim as ordered by the judge.
I have till Monday 4pm to submit my defense to the court. I am thinking of posting it by tomorrow so that they can receive it by Monday. Will keep proof of postage.
I am thinking of sending the defense below, please advise and comment if this should suffice.
I have copied and amended this defense to suit my case, would like to give the credit to the author.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH
My name is XXXXXXX and I reside at XXXXXXXX
I am the defendant in this matter for claim number XXXXXXX dated 27th March 2017.
The following is my supporting statement in support of my application to:-
I. Order for the Original claim to be dismissed.
II. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £255.00 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.
III. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant no less than £250.00 for breaching the Data Protection Act.
IV. Order for the claimant to pay £1,000.00 as compensation for causing distress and behaving in an unreasonable way under rule 27.14.2 (g).
V. Order for the claimant to pay the costs to the defendant as per the enclosed schedule.

1. On 27th March 2017 the Claimant (Civil Enforcement Ltd) obtained a default judgment against me (registered keeper) of the car (Vehicle Registration number XXXX) in relation to an alleged contravention that took place on the 28th March 2016.
A court hearing was held on 2nd October 2017 at XXXXX county court to set aside the judgment. The claimant failed to attend the hearing and the judge set aside the judgment.
The Claimant was given 2 weeks (by 4pm 16th October 2017) to file and serve the amended particulars of claim setting out the facts supporting the claim, but they failed to do that.
The defendant requested the claimant to get all the details about the alleged contravention, so that the defendant can defend the alleged claim but the claimant has chosen to ignore the request and has not sent any details to the defendant as yet.
I believe that the claimant has behaved in an unreasonable way and shows no regard or respect for anybody including the courts. They have been blatantly ignoring the court’s instruction and wasting precious court time and resources and abusing the justice system as a whole.
I believe that the claimant has behaved unfairly and unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me. They have a long history of making bogus inflated court claims. Therefore, this claim should be dismissed in its entirety.
2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defense being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defense. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
e) The Defense therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not), is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, mentioned a possible £350.07 for outstanding debt and damages.
4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.!
c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(ii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorized party using the premises as intended.
(iii) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
(iv) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.
7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement Ltd do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.
8. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.!
9. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
10. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim on 27th March 2017, that resulted in the defendant receiving a default CCJ unfairly.
(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
Signed
Date

[Deleted User]

No, no, no. You cannot serve a defence if they are in breach and haven't filed particulars in default of a court order.

Your best approach is either to strike out on the basis that the claim is not properly particularised and the claimant is in default (another application) or to write to the court and to ask for directions explaining that you cannot very well do a defence if new particulars may or may not be served (in the hope that the court makes their own order).

BTW if you win the case you will also win back the £255 costs of your default judgment set aside as the costs are reserved (the order would otherwise be no order for costs).

nosferatu1001

You have 14 days from when the PoC are served. Not the claim form, as tht states you dont have th actual PoC.

The period for filing a defence
15.4
(1) The general rule is that the period for filing a defence is –
(a) 14 days after service of the particulars of claim; or
(b) if the defendant files an acknowledgment of service under Part 10, 28 days after service of the particulars of claim.
(Rule 7.4 provides for the particulars of claim to be contained in or served with the claim form or served within 14 days of service of the claim form)

I would sugegst calling the court, checking they dont have PoC. ASsuming they dont, write to them asking them to use their inherent powers to strike out the claim . Loadsofchildren has the details on loads of threads.