We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD have filed a CCJ for old address
Comments
-
Hi,
Numerous posts are mentioning that one can submit the defence via email to 'CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk', which I believe is for the Northampton County Court Business Centre. My set-aside happened at my local county court where I was directed to file a defence. So, do I need to submit my defence back to my local county court or to the Northampton County Court ? Pls note that no hearing date has been set for the final defence post the set-aside.
A dumb question maybe, but just wanted to be sure that am submitting the papers at the right place.
Further, below is the defence that I have drafted, please let me know if it deems fit --
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
Preliminary
1. The particulars of claim lack specificity. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an amended defence should the Claimant add to or expand his particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the particulars.
2. The particulars of claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither complies with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.
3. Further, the claimant served the particulars of the claim to the Defendant at noon of 30th October 2018, almost a day late and in contravention to the direction of the Hon’ble District Judge XXXX at the County Court at XXXX, given in his final order at the set-aside hearing on the 2nd October 2018, which required the Claimant to serve the particulars by 4PM of 29th October 2018
4. The Witness Statement, evidence and the Skeleton Argument produced in person at the set-aside hearing on 2nd October 201are repeated. These are also served to the Claimant, who was absent at the set-aside hearing.
5. It is noted that the Schedule of Costs for the previous set-aside hearing on 2nd October 2018, including the cost of the set-aside, were reserved by the Hon’ble District Judge XXXX at the County Court at XXXX. A further schedule of costs has been attached for the defence hearing.
Background
1. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings.
2. It is neither admitted nor denied that on [date XXXX] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]. Due to the length of time passed since the alleged incident the Defendant is unable to accurately recall the date in question.
3. The order to the claim be dismissed due to the following reasons, which are further outlined below –
a. Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012)
b. Lack of adequate notice of the parking charge on clear signage, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in the Parking Eye vs Beavis case
c. Unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge, in contravention to the BPA Code of Practice and established legal precedents
d. Claimant has no evidence of landowner authority or a legal contract, in contravention to the BPA Code of Practice
e. Illegal signage at alleged site from Claimant, no planning permissions for usage of ANPR and signboards
Failure to follow Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4
4. It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
a. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").
b. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
i. There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and:
ii. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
iii. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
c. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.
2. Lack of adequate notice of the parking charge on clear signage.
a. In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only (Evidence E.10).
b. In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges. Appended (Evidence E.9) is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case
c. This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed. Here, the signs are sporadically placed. The wording is mostly illegible as it is so small in size, particularly notice of the actual parking charge itself
d. This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2nd June 2016, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate
''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operator’s signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''
Alternative Defence-
Failure to set out clearly parking terms, Lack of Landowner Authority, Illegal Signage
3. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
4. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
5. Schedule 4 POFA Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £60 (£40 discounted). The claim includes an additional £223.16, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt more than quadruple recovery.
6. The claimant has no evidence of landowner authority or a legal contract, in contravention of Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code. The Claimant has failed to provide this evidence. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the Claimant has permission from the landowner to operate on this land and issue PCN’s. As such, section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice has not been met.
7. The Claimant has omitted to obtain Planning Permissions or Advertising Consent from XXXX Borough Council & the present Landowner for the Signage or the ANPR Cameras. The XXXX Borough Council Planning Register does not show any such applications in its planning history. It is contended that the signs are in place without consent and are therefore illegal advertisements
8. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.
XX/11/2018
0 -
Numerous posts are mentioning that one can submit the defence via email to 'CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk', which I believe is for the Northampton County Court Business Centre. My set-aside happened at my local county court where I was directed to file a defence. So, do I need to submit my defence back to my local county court or to the Northampton County Court ? Pls note that no hearing date has been set for the final defence post the set-aside.
Your defence goes to your local court and to CEL.
MCOL is not involved in your case now it's set aside and already local.
Maybe change this as shown, and why is 'Honorable' being shortened? (Normally it's ''His Honour Judge xxxxx'):5. It is noted that the Schedule of Costs for the previous set-aside hearing on 2nd October 2018, including the cost of the set-aside, were reserved by HHJ XXXX at the County Court at XXXX. A further schedule of costs has been attached for the defence hearing and the Defendant seeks costs in the indemnity basis, including xx hours (at half the cost of a Band D fee earner trainee solicitor or paralegal) spent on this wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim. This is provided in advance because the Defendant suspects that this Claimant will not appear at the hearing or might now discontinue the case late, in the hope of avoiding all costs liabilities. The Defendant asks that all his costs thus far are reserved and in the event of discontinuance - or the claim being held to be wholly unreasonable at the hearing - be granted in full, on the indemnity basis.
Make sure your costs schedule is larger this time (including the hourly rate for time spent). See the one sassii used.
Remove this:e. Illegal signage at alleged site from Claimant, no planning permissions for usage of ANPR and signboards
and this:d. This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2nd June 2016, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate
''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operator’s signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''
and this:7. The Claimant has omitted to obtain Planning Permissions or Advertising Consent from XXXX Borough Council & the present Landowner for the Signage or the ANPR Cameras. The XXXX Borough Council Planning Register does not show any such applications in its planning history. It is contended that the signs are in place without consent and are therefore illegal advertisementsPRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks a lot, I've made those changes. Also made the defence more detailed, as the set-aside Skeleton and various evidence were never served to CEL, just the WS. So, I plan to do it now.
On the costs schedule, are you pointing to this thread : https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5723229/maxing-out-the-counterclaim-call-to-action&page=2#32
This looks exhaustive, I do plan to use it, but am wary if it looks too much and Judge might not look at it favorably. Maybe am wrong here? Or what if CEL files a counter claim with more punitive costs? Can they do that now?
The newbie thread also points to :https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72639343#Comment_72639343
Although for a VEXATIOUS claim - in my case, I used the argument in the set-aside that CEL deliberately ignored the FOIR3988 guideline from DVLA and kept on posting to my old address. I also showed that other credit agencies followed guideline and posted to my correct/new address. This is also in breach of CPR Service of Documents. So, essentially CEL behaved unreasonably, causing the matter to reach to this point. Can I use this argument for 'Unreasonable Behavior'?0 -
what if CEL files a counter claim with more punitive costs? Can they do that now?Although for a VEXATIOUS claim - in my case, I used the argument in the set-aside that CEL deliberately ignored the FOIR3988 guideline from DVLA and kept on posting to my old address. I also showed that other credit agencies followed guideline and posted to my correct/new address. This is also in breach of CPR Service of Documents. So, essentially CEL behaved unreasonably, causing the matter to reach to this point. Can I use this argument for 'Unreasonable Behavior'?
In order to show unreasonableness you need to be ready to set out an entire path showing that they were wholly unreasonable, ideally from the start (the PCN) right through the process, using the old address despite the DVLA instruction to parking firms, etc. and despite the will of Government:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/government-announce-ccj-review-due-to.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-protect-consumers-from-debt-claims
So yes you need to throw in every point about unreasonableness, including the very fact they are trying to hold a registered keeper liable and ruined your credit rating, knowing the address was likely to be wrong and knowing that they can't hold a keeper liable anyway (CEL use non-POFA Notice to Keepers) and had no evidence of who was driving, so there was never a cause of action anyway.
If you can build that clear picture, I say draw up a very large costs schedule, of course including the £255 set aside fee and both sets of costs for attending two hearings, and your hourly rate worked out at half that of a Band D fee earner.
With a CEL dodgy CCJ to an old address I'd say go to town on your Costs Schedule. The worst that could happen is that you lose the case and pay the parking charge plus about fifty quid court fees, but the best end result, is that you not only win and get all your costs for the hearing & £255 back, but you also get your other costs on the indemnity basis too. sassii did!
Take proof of earnings with you and be prepared with a list of 'unreasonable conduct' to read out blow by blow, to try to meet the high bar, of a 'wholly unreasonable and vexatious' claim. Needs a real effort but if you don't try you won't get!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks, that was really helpful!
I have now drafted a comprehensive Defendant's Cost Application, weaving that story, and also the revised Schedule of Costs. Kindly have a look and let me know if looks fine and I'll submit it over to the court tomorrow.
In the County Court at XXXX
Claim No.: XXXX
Between
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD.
(Claimant)
-v-
XXXXXXXX
(Defendant)
DEFENDANT’S COSTS APPLICATION
1. General costs rule in Small Claims: no costs order. However:
1.1. CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g): costs can be awarded where a party behaves unreasonably
1.2. Paragraph 16 of Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct: a party who has not complied with its pre-action obligations can be ordered to pay costs (even if the party has succeeded in its claim/defence) and there is also a power to remit/increase interest.
Defendant says both apply and seeks a costs order against Claimant.
Unreasonable Conduct:
2. The Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had reason to believe that the address of the Defendant is an address at which the Defendant no longer resides or carries on business. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business despite having 9 months to establish an address between the alleged incident (17th Feb 2017) and the default judgment (25th Nov 2017). This has led to a defective service.
CPR – SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS APPENDED AS EVIDENCE: E.6
3. Claimant continued to use outdated addresses rather than take reasonable steps. As per Freedom of Information Request (FOIR3988) from June 2014, the claimant knew about the DVLA allowing the use of Credit Reference Agencies and Tracing Agencies, and the sensible reasons for using, specifying that similar circumstances to be applying equally to the car parking industry, but has been clearly ignored and not followed by the Claimant in an attempt to obtain a default judgement.
COPY OF DVLA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (FOIR3988) APPENDED AS EVIDENCE: E.7
4. Other credit agencies (‘Pastdue Credit Solutions’) were able to contact the Defendant both via email (on 14th July 2017) and paper mail (on 7th July 2017) at Defendant’s current address. This exhibits correct working practices and adherence to CPR 6.9 (3) and diligently following guidance by DVLA on using Credit Reference Agencies and Tracing Agencies by other firms during the same time period.
COPY OF PAPER MAIL FROM PASTDUE CREDIT SOLUTIONS APPENDED AS EVIDENCE: E.8
COPY OF E MAIL FROM PASTDUE CREDIT SOLUTIONS APPENDED AS EVIDENCE: E.9
5. The above confirms that it’s a deliberate attempt by the Claimant to abuse the CCJ system by adhering to unreasonable malpractices. This has caused undue hardships for the Defendant, whose credit rating have been debunked to near useless values, thus severely crippling him in his daily life.
6. The aforementioned unreasonable behaviour of the Claimant further risked the Defendant losing his job as his employers have strict policy of a clean Credit and Background Check. Defendant immediately apprised his employer of the whole situation and was given a chance to pursue the set-aside without losing his job, to which the Defendant is very grateful to his employer for their understanding.
7. It is noted that such unreasonable behaviour of Parking companies, Government in their right mindset have announced a CCJ review due to parking companies exploiting the legal system in December 2016. The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald QC MP on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses." The Minister added
"It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That in the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.”
GOV.UK ANNOUNCEMENT FOR NEW MEASURES CONSULTATION APPENDED AS EVIDENCE: E.19
8. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). Claimant not conforming to POFA Schedule 4, further avers that they have unreasonably pursued the Defendant as the driver, so there was no cause of action.
9. It is, thus, noted that all the above show the unreasonable conduct of the Claimant, their non-compliance to the industry standards and practices, irresponsible behaviour in issuing invalid claims, knowingly sending the correspondence to old address thereby crippling the life of the Defendant by debunking their credit history via the abuse of the CCJ system.
Breaches of Pre-action Practice Direction (“the PD”):
10. Paras 3, 8 and 12 of the PD set out its purpose, which is to primarily to avoid litigation (para 8) by laying down a procedure which allows the parties to:
10.1. understand each other’s positions (para 3)
10.2. make decisions about how to proceed (para 3)
10.3. explore settlement/consider ADR (para 3)
10.4. support the “efficient management” of any proceedings and reduce costs (para 3)
10.5. “stocktake” and review their respective positions after following the PD by exchanging information, to see if proceedings can be avoided and to “at least” narrow the issues (para 12).
11. Paras 6(a) & (c) oblige a Claimant to enter into a meaningful dialogue with a Defendant at an early stage by imposing specific obligations to:
11.1. explain the claim in a Letter Before Claim,
11.2. provide relevant core documents, and
11.3. answer any questions asked by D in sufficient detail for Defendant to understand and respond
12. No such options were provided to the Defendant by the Claimant due their continued posting of communication to the old address. Defendant was never provided an opportunity for rightful communication and thus denied opportunities to avoid litigation in a blatant breach of para 6
13. Claimant’s conduct has denied Defendant the opportunities under 2.1-5: no pre-action dialogue at all. In fact, until Defendant had himself pursued the Credit Agencies to identify the CCJ on Defendant, he had no idea of the cause of action being pursued or the evidence being relied upon, which resulted in him having to defend the Claim on all fronts.
14. Had Claimant complied, the following could have been discussed prior to court proceedings, and issues before the court today could have been disposed of or narrowed:
14.1. whether or not Defendant was driver - this would have saved all the time which has been spent on Claimant asserting that he is and Defendant producing evidence to deny this;
14.2. Defendant’s liability as registered keeper – liability under POFA could have been disposed of as a result of Defendant’s case that POFA has not been complied with meaning that there can be no registered keeper liability
14.3. Defendant could have raised some or all of the other points now raised in the Defence/WS/Skeleton.
15. Para 13-16 sanctions: compliance with the PD is not voluntary, nor is it a “guide” to best practice. It is part of the CPR and is binding. Parties are expected to comply with it. The court may punish those who do not. Inter alia, the court’s powers include a costs order, and this may be on the indemnity basis (16(a) and (b)) and the power to remit (or increase) interest 16(c)/(d). Such sanctions can apply even against a successful party (paragraph 16).
16. The PD’s aim is to create an opportunity to resolve matters (or at least narrow issues) in the “lower cost atmosphere of pre-action protocol procedure”, rather than the “higher cost atmosphere of court proceedings” (as it was referred to in Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855).
17. Defendant relies on the following case law:
17.1. Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch);
Successful Claimant failed to recover costs and ordered to pay Defendant’s. Judgment reiterated that the aim of the pre-action requirements was to enable an early exchange of information so that a potential claim could be fully investigated and, if possible, resolved without the need for costly litigation. It clearly demonstrates that litigation should be a last resort, not pursued as a matter of course as C has done in this case.
17.2. Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872;
Punitive costs order against Claimant for failing to comply with the PD.
Paragraph 11: “It is abundantly clear to me that….. this is not a series of allegations that had been properly or thoroughly investigated until…. “ after proceedings had been issued.
Paragraph 14: “The pre-action protocol provides that there should be a claim letter with a clear summary of the facts on which each claim is based”, and “the object of the protocol is… to get people to put their cards on the table and to honestly and rationally discuss matters. To that end meetings are provided for, and there is a requirement… which prescribes that there should be a rational and sensible response… the protocol provides the framework for a sensible discussion, or the chance for a sensible discussion so that the option is available to a party to avoid the need for litigation.”
17.3. Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855;
Defendant awarded costs because of Claimant’s failure to comply with the PD. Judgment reiterates the purpose of the pre-action obligations is for parties to make a real attempt to resolve matters at an early stage.
Paragraph 46: punitive costs order was justified by the “exchange of information taking place, not in the lower-cost atmosphere of pre-action protocol procedure, but in the higher-cost atmosphere of court proceedings “
Summary:
18. Claimant appears to believe it is immune from steps which each party to litigation is expected and required to take both prior to proceedings being issued, and afterwards. Its attitude to its obligations under the PD, and under the CPR, to the court process and the rules of natural justice, is contemptuous and cannot go unnoticed and unpunished.
19. Claimant’s conduct, both pre- and post-action, has denied Defendant the opportunity to understand and deal with the claim: he has been unable properly to assess the strength of the claim at an early stage (and likewise Claimant has denied itself the opportunity to assess the strength of the defence), to put his own case to the Claimant and for each party to have entered into dialogue and/or attempted to narrow the issues between them (let alone agree a compromise).
20. Claimant’s dogged determination to proceed to court ignoring the guidance to pursue other avenues to find Defendant’s current address has resulted in a significant waste of time and costs and court resources. Defendant has had to submit a lengthy witness statement, a lengthy Defence and a lengthy Skeleton Argument/Case Summary accompanied by a large amount of legislation and case law.
21. Claimant has no excuse: it has been represented by solicitors who are known to deal [almost] exclusively with these types of claims and who are professionally bound to know the law and comply with relevant obligations/procedures.
22. In considering the reasonableness of Claimant’s conduct the court should take into account its position as a professional parking company whose day to day business is issuing PCNs and pursuing motorists for payment. It is therefore a seasoned litigant which should be fully conversant with the court rules and its obligations. Additionally, Claimant is specifically bound by its CoP (compliance with which is mandatory) to know the relevant legislation which binds it as a parking company [insert relevant para of CoP – in BPA code it’s para A2.4]. In comparison, Defendant is a litigant in person, an ordinary person with no experience of the court (yet has managed to comply with all of his obligations and the court rules).
23. Defendant submits that paras 21-2 result in Claimant having a higher duty to behave reasonably.
24. This case falls comfortably within the category of those in which the court should exercise its powers under R27.14(2)(g) and/or para 16 of the PD. A summary costs order should be made against the Claimant on the indemnity basis and a costs schedule is attached.
In the County Court at XXXX
Claim No.: XXXXXX
Between
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD.
(Claimant)
-v-
XXXXXX
(Defendant)
DEFENDANT'S SCHEDULE OF COSTS
Ordinary Costs
Set-aside fees £255
1 Printing of statement of defence (estimated) £25
2 Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 02/10/2018 for set-aside £150
3 Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court for defence hearing £150
4 Return mileage from home address to Court for set-aside, defence hearing and submitting defence document (10 miles x £0.5 x 3) £15
5 Printing of Witness Statement and evidence (estimated) £75
6 Printing of Skeleton Argument (estimated) £20
7 Time spent to write this letter / application, 5 hours x £19 £95
8 Car park to attend set-aside court hearing (estimated) £8
9 Car park to attend defence court hearing (estimated) £8
Sub-total: £801 ======
Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)
Time spent on documents
Reading:
1 Statement of Claim form: 0.5 hour
2 Court order (allocation and timetable): 0.5 hour
3 IPC Code of Practice: 3 hours
4 BPA Code of Practice: 3 hours
5 DVLA FOIR 3988: 0.5 hour
6 POPLA Annual Report 2015: 2 hours
7 SAR from the Claimant: 2 hours
8 Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedom Act 2012: 3 hours
9 Civil Procedure Rules Part 16: 3 hours
10 Tort – In relation to trespass: 3 hours
11 Occupiers Liability – both in statute and tort: 3 hours
12 Data Protection: 3 hours
13 Consumer Protection and Disability Discrimination: 3 hours
14 Civil Procedure Rules Part 27: 3 hours
15 Practice Direction 27: 3 hours
16 Civil Procedure Rules Part 31: 3 hours
17 Court cases:
a. ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67: 2 hours
b. Elliot v Loake ('EvL') [1982] : 1 hour
c. Jopson v Homeguard [2016] 9GF0A9E: 1 hour
d. Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016]: 1 hour
e. Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016]: 1 hour
f. Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011: 1 hour
g. UKPC v Masterson [2016] B6QZ4H3R: 1 hour
Total: 46.5 hours
Drafting:
1 N244 set-aside form: 0.5 hour
2 Statement of Defence: 6.5 hours
3 Skeleton Argument: 5 hours
4 Witness Statement 9 hours
5 Schedule of Costs 1 hours
5 Other work done on documents like Printing, Scanning & Organising: 3 hours
Total: 25 hours
Correspondence
1 1 letter to Claimant: 0.5 hour
Total: 0.5 hours
Other
1 8 calls to court 8x15 minutes: 2 hours
2 4 calls to Claimant on premium number 4 x 15 minutes 1 hour
3 Time spent to post 1 tracked delivery letter to Claimant 0.5 hours
4 Site visit to take photographs and collect evidence 1.5 hours
Total: 5 hours
Total hours costs, 1from the above: 77 hours at £19 per hour = £1463.00 =======
TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED: £801.00 + £1463.00 = £2264.00
0 -
The only part that didn't read right to me, was this:Claimant not conforming to POFA Schedule 4, further avers that they have unreasonably pursued the Defendant as the driver, so there was no cause of action.
Maybe:
- on the unsupported presumption that a keeper is fair game because they might have been the driver
or
- on the unsupported assumption that a keeper might be the driver. If it were that simple, then Parliament had no reason to bring in Schedule 4 of the POFA, allowing keeper liability provisions under certain strict rules.
Depends on you take on it, your wording but not ''as the driver'' which sounds like an admission.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Point noted, thanks for that!
In terms of costs schedule, I have taken it upto £2264. I have taken few standard Court case readings as a part of that, i hope that should be fine, though some I have definitely read with some detail.
I plan to submit the following tomorrow in court in ring binding and a separate copy to CEL for my defence -
1. Defence Statement
2. Schedule of Costs
3. CEL's PoC
4. Documents from Set-Aside, including WS and Skeleton Argument with Evidence
I hope that's all, pls let me know if am missing something. Like, do I need to attach a draft order, like I had done with the WS?0 -
Honestly go for it! Looks good to me.
The worst that can happen re costs if you win, is that the Judge says no to some of those costs, but IMHO you have painted a decent picture of unreasonableness and CEL have this coming to them re these cases. They are playing with people's minds, money and lives.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
That's a great relief to hear, it really boosts my confidence now.
Thanks a lot!!0 -
I've just replied on sassii's thread and it is truly awesome to read about an ordinary person fighting back!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards