Civil Enforcement CCJ set aside - update - hearing next week

Gypsygold

Hi
I now have a set aside hearing court date for next week (in approx 10 days time). I understand that I need to show that i applied for the set aside promptly and that I have a good chance of defending the claim in court. This defence will be on the basis of 3 things:

1. CEL do not comply with POFA Sch 4 wording
2. The claim was defectively served using an old address
3. The court forms were not completed correctly and go against Civil Procedure Rules

What I don't fully understand is how CEL don't comply with POFA Sch4. I would like to completely understand this in case I am pressed on it. I now have copies of the paperwork from CEL and there appears to be wording relating to POFA and keeper on the pay slip of the PCN in the tiniest writing. Is this where is falls down, and if so in what way?

Any help would be extremely gratefully received!

Gypsygold

Anyone help with the above, and also could someone point me in the direction of the DVLA FOI document that confirms PPCs were told they should/can use TRACE to check addresses? I have googled and searched but failed!

Coupon-mad

I now have copies of the paperwork from CEL and there appears to be wording relating to POFA and keeper on the pay slip of the PCN in the tiniest writing. Is this where is falls down, and if so in what way?

You hit the nail on the head. The tear-off payment slip has been held in proper Council Tribunal adjudications (i.e. in REAL penalty charge cases) not to form part of the PCN itself and it has been held time & again by proper adjudicators applying real parking law, that statutory wording can't be buried in a tear-off part.

Whilst this is not a Council PCN, it is reasonable to apply the same test to this charge, given that the wording is also statutory and mandatory as the will of Parliament in the POFA.

Also as you say, it's in tiny writing/hidden, so hardly meets the required warning to tell keepers about potential liability.

Also the POFA requires other things too. There must be a relevant contract on signs, and/or relevant obligation (on the driver to do, or not do something) and there must be 'adequate notice' of the parking charge itself (which means, clear and prominent signs with brief and legible terms like in the Beavis case).

So as you were not the driver (or have seen no evidence to know either way) you can cast doubt that the requirements of Schedule 4 were ALL fulfilled, not just the NTK, and that you deserve an opportunity to defend the matter in court at a full hearing.

also could someone point me in the direction of the DVLA FOI document that confirms PPCs were told they should/can use TRACE to check addresses? I have googled and searched but failed!

Hmmm, I know what you mean, but not sure where that is, maybe someone else can find it.

Make sure you remember to ask the Judge to order that this roboclaim 'cut & paste' Claimant (who has not bothered to turn up) be ordered to pay your costs for the set aside hearing (£255 fee, plus travel and loss of salary/leave, and parking) in the event they then discontinue or do not proceed with the claim as subsequently ordered, within the time frame required.

Don't leave that unsaid. At the very least you need the Judge to hopefully order that your costs are noted and 'reserved' to the full hearing, but that doesn't assist you if they discontinue and run away with their fingers in their ears after the CCJ is set aside.

Why should consumers be so badly out of pocket from scam firms who use old addresses, harvest money from people who pay, and then run away when anyone fights back, leaving that person £350-odd poorer? Make that point at the end, especially if your Judge seems onside on the day.

Umkomaas

and also could someone point me in the direction of the DVLA FOI document that confirms PPCs were told they should/can use TRACE to check addresses?

This one? I've not read through it all, but Trace is mentioned in it.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_charge_notices_245#incoming-1097669

If this isn't the one, do some more digging around on Whatdotheyknow.

Gypsygold

Many thanks. My case will be heard in Cambridge - any experience of Cambridge courts with these kind of cases?

Umkomaas

Gypsygold wrote: »

Many thanks. My case will be heard in Cambridge - any experience of Cambridge courts with these kind of cases?

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Judgment_1905-OCRD_2.pdf

You did ask ..... but they were frying a much bigger fish!

Melissah19

Hi, currently experiencing the same thing! We have only just found out that we have one against us from the 14th Feb we moved from our old address on the 2nd and changed details on the 17th!
Please let me know how you get on we are looking to contest as soon as possible x

twhitehousescat

Melissah19 wrote: »

Hi, currently experiencing the same thing! We have only just found out that we have one against us from the 14th Feb we moved from our old address on the 2nd and changed details on the 17th!
Please let me know how you get on we are looking to contest as soon as possible x

you should have received court paperwork at the old house when you lived there , prior to that at least a month before you should have received a LBCC

was this paperwork not received?

Melissah19

Hi, we didn't receive any documents from the old house. We had given forwarding addresses to neighbours but nothing has been redirected. We changed the driving licences and log book for he vehicle.
Licences were changed and received on the 20-2-18, log book took a little longer and came through on the 27-3.

We have since found out it was using an anpr camera at the hospital which has a 3 hour waiting time and we were there for 3hours 10 minutes and reported the car to the receptionist as being longer!
Confused to say the least because we following procedure and are now struggling to find a way out.

Gypsygold

Success! I was in the court room (hearing room) for just over ten minutes and the judge agreed to set it aside after about 5 minutes.

He advised me when I went in that CEL had written to say they would not be attending, and that they were happy for the judgement to be set aside. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing!

The judge in essence wanted to assure himself that I had applied in good time (and then apologised that it had taken so long to get to court) and establish why I hadn't responded first time round. He was happy that the reason was a house move and that I had never received papers. Interestingly he wasn't bothered about my defence and went on to tell me that he didn't think any of the POFA arguments would stand up in court as they hadn't done so in other cases. This worries me a little so I will no doubt be back for more help very soon.

In the meantime I would like to say a massive thank you to all those that helped, and in particular Coupon Mad - I couldn't have done it without you. The relief is overwhelming.