Please help! ***I WON***

chunkrock

Well the good news is the postman was not sick (he brought me my new spiderman bluray, yay!) but also he brought me nothing from CEL and the deadline has passed.

How does this sound?

Urgent Matter - to be referred to Procedural Judge.

In the matter of

Civil Enforcement Limited v Mr X
Claim Number XXXXXXXX


Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer to the set aside hearing dated XXXX in which the judge ruled that the initial judgement dated XXXXX be set aside. As part of this ruling the judge ordered the claimant must serve the defendant with full particulars of the original claim by 4pm on the 23rd November 2018. The claimant has failed to produce this information.

On this basis I would like to request that the claim be dismissed in its entirety and a costs order to be made against the Claimant

The Defendant had significant costs to prepare for the attendance of the hearing and the costs claimed are as follows:

Schedule of costs

Research and preparation of defence as litigant in person @£19 per hour,
6 hours. Total £114.
Court costs for set-aside hearing
£255

One day off work to attend hearing on 09/11/2018 @£13.57 per hour X 10.15 hours
£137.73

Return train fare to and from the court on the date of the hearing
£4.80

Total costs claimed £511.53

Umkomaas

Just a heads up - there is a maximum of £95 for loss of earnings/loss of leave for half a day - no more.

So you could express your total loss but acknowledge the fact that you are expecting no more than the max permitted. Might look better.

Redx

Umkomaas wrote: »

This is not face recognition technology. Maybe you can see what you can see, but they'll see nothing but a random face - just a single face from 70 million in the country. Come on, think about this stuff! Check the definition of ANPR - that's all they use!

Do you think that the PPC knows what anyone looks like? Or are you famous?



They have no clue whatsoever - and in 99% of times (I'm sure it's 100% - but we don't see every case) CEL don't push forward with any re-submission of their claim.
.

and even if you are famous, it could be mistaken identity , lol


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/24/blackpool-police-hunt-suspect-who-looks-like-ross-from-friends

chunkrock

Redx wrote: »

and even if you are famous, it could be mistaken identity , lol


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/24/blackpool-police-hunt-suspect-who-looks-like-ross-from-friends

Haha brilliant; but alas I have very distinguishable facial features

Umkomaas

chunkrock wrote: »

Haha brilliant; but alas I have very distinguishable facial features

Like two heads?

Or simply stunningly good looking (like me :eek:)

Forget it - it can't possibly be an issue.

Umkomaas

I didn't spot 'ginger beard' on first skim read!

chunkrock

Slightly tweaked, would appreciate some guidance before I mail it off

Also: I recieved notification from the court that my debt has been settled... it was not settled it was set aside... does this mean I have to chase the court as my CCJ will still be on my credit report?

anyway, the letter:

Urgent Matter - to be referred to Procedural Judge.

In the matter of

Civil Enforcement Limited v Mr X
Claim Number XXXXXXXX


Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer to the set aside hearing dated XXXX in which the judge ruled that the initial judgement dated XXXXX be set aside. As part of this ruling the judge ordered the claimant must serve the defendant with full particulars of the original claim by 4pm on the 23rd November 2018. The claimant has failed to produce this information.

On this basis I would like to request that the claim be dismissed in its entirety and a costs order to be made against the Claimant

The Defendant had significant costs to prepare for the attendance of the hearing and the costs claimed are as follows:

Schedule of costs

Research and preparation of defence as litigant in person @£19 per hour,
6 hours. Total £114.
Court costs for set-aside hearing
£255

One day off work to attend hearing on 09/11/2018 @£13.57 per hour X 5 hours
£67.85


Return train fare to and from the court on the date of the hearing
£4.80

Total costs claimed £441.65


/end of letter


it is Saturday and I still haven't had a letter from CEL so can I assume I am in the clear?

Umkomaas

I don't purport to be the expert in the court side of things, but for what it's worth, it looks ok to me.

However, I think in your costs schedule I'd be showing the set aside fee of £255 on the first line, not potentially lost in the other costs.

£255 is a real cost that has been expended, and that must be your prime target. Lumping it under a litigant-in-person line (which many Judges dismiss, as unreasonable behaviour has not been proven conclusively) might see the Judge get no further and dismiss the whole costs claim.

Attach copies of pay slips to confirm your level of pay and justify your claim for loss of earnings/leave.

HTH

Coupon-mad

I agree, put this one last:

Research and preparation of defence as litigant in person @£19 per hour, 6 hours. Total £114.

And to claim that, why not state that you have shown all your costs on the indemnity basis because it is your position that the claimant has crossed the line of wholly unreasonable and vexatious conduct from start to finish and - despite being a serial litigant - still continues to totally disregard the directions and authority of the court.

list the unreasonable conduct on an attached sheet, like this - headed:

'WHOLLY UNREASONABLE CONDUCT OF THE CLAIMANT':

- Start with a BRIEF mention of the unclear signs, thus the driver could never have entered into any contract in the first place.

- Then the fact the Claimant continued to use an old address which the D moved out of 8 months before the parking event, and from the lack of any response, knew or should have known the D was very likely not at that address.

- The D believes the origin of the wrong address came from the lease firm that owned the car. Thus the Claimant did not even have the excuse that they were certain that the information was a true ''last known address'' or even obtained from a Government Source (DVLA) and there would be every reason to question the reliability of a hearsay address from a lease firm (it being wrong, either by error or omission) and yet the Claimant did nothing to clarify the matter.

- this could have been easily established before court action, by simply sending a signed-for letter to establish if the D was there.

- alternatively, the C could have used a Tracing agent, as the DVLA advised all parking firms to do.

- as serial litigators who must have come across this issue many times, since they issue claims many months after parking events and unlike other traders, never have the address from any written contract so should be far more proactive and prudent as serial litigators entrusted with consumer data, see:

http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2014/05/18/service-of-the-claim-form-service-at-last-known-address-more-dangerbepoints-to-watch/

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: SERVICE AT “LAST KNOWN” ADDRESS: MORE DANGEROUS POINTS TO WATCH
If the claimant has any suspicion at all that the defendant does not remain at the “last known address” it would be prudent to check this prior to issue.

A prudent claimant should assume that lapse of time, or a failure to respond to correspondence, gives rise to a risk that the defendant has moved.

IF YOU CANNOT FIND THE DEFENDANT

Then you can serve at the last known address. However a claimant remains vulnerable if they cannot show that they have taken “reasonable steps” to find the defendant or an alternative address for service.

- The White Book Part 6 'Service of Documents' discusses the 'duty' to take reasonable steps and that a Claimant ''MUST consider'' whether there is an alternative place to serve a claim, if there is any suspicion that the Defendant cannot be properly served at the address the Claimant holds.

- the C did none of the above. Failure to take 'reasonable' steps can only be concluded by the ordinary man in the street, and the Court, as proof of 'unreasonableness'. The Court is aware from the discussions at the uncontested set aside hearing, that the Claimant took no “reasonable steps” whatsoever, to find the Defendant or an alternative address for service.

- and in addition, the C knew they could not hold the Hirer/lessee liable anyway, due to their own choice never to use the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) provisions in Schedule 4 (which the D's defence intended to establish, and would have been easy to prove since this Claimant does not issue any of the required documents with their Notice to Hirer once they get a name/address).

- Para 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of the POFA is the applicable section of the statute that the Claimant did not bother to comply with. Thus a hirer/lessee could not have been held liable in the first place.

- this was to say the least, a poorly-pleaded claim from the outset, compounded by the Claimant's total and abject disregard for the rights & interests of consumers and of the authority of the Court.

- the Claimant proceeded to obtain a CCJ anyway, displaying the exact conduct that caused the Government to announce this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-protect-consumers-from-debt-claims

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/government-announce-ccj-review-due-to.html

- all parking firms that were BPA members were informed of that Government statement & enquiry, and that was in 2016. This Claimant's PCN was from late 2017, so their conduct paid no regard whatsoever to the will of Parliament, or the will of the DVLA who encouraged parking firms to use Tracing agents before suing people who had not replied to a PCN.

- the C then did not bother to turn up to the set aside hearing the D was forced to pay £255 for, and lose a day's pay, to remove the CCJ and enable them to defend.

- the C then added insult to injury, ignoring the Court and the rights & interests of the Defendant, by not bothering to comply with the set aside Order, giving the D no chance to defend it and show the court why they were not liable for the PCN and no chance to reclaim their costs face to face, in front of a Judge.

- in preparation, this D (being a litigant in person untrained in such matters) has spent many hours researching the POFA, the set aside procedure, and how to construct a defence in order to deal with this unwarranted demand they knew nothing about. Having spent those hours of research, the D was prepared to defend the meritless claim, but it seems will now not be afforded that opportunity and the Claimant seems content to walk away.

- The C is believed likely to try to discontinue the claim now, as has been recorded in hundreds of cases of set aside CCJs emanating from this same serial offender Claimant.

- this would leave the D to foot the bill for all the costs shown in the costs schedule and the Claimant would, yet again, escape scot-free to do the same to other Defendants. This is clearly wholly unreasonable and vexatious conduct for which no relief from sanctions should be granted.

- This is a gross abuse of process, and the Defendant applies for all his costs, and asks that sanctions should be imposed. The Defendant relies upon para 41 of Mitchell v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 1 WLR 795 which is re-iterated in para 24 of Denton v T H White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, and asks for costs on the indemnity basis.

- Costs Schedule attached which includes the (believed to be reserved) costs from the set aside application.

chunkrock

This is amazing thank you but I need to clarify something.

They found me through my log book which I failed to update. The court accepted this was an honest mistake with me being a new driver and updating my details with the DVLA in regards to my license. - The lease company were never contacted (as far as I am aware)