Civil Enforcement CCJ set aside - update - hearing next week

Coupon-mad

Very pleased to read this!

Except:

he didn't think any of the POFA arguments would stand up in court as they hadn't done so in other cases

Sorry, but what an idiot. He has no clue. Of course POFA arguments work when relevant (often!).

But also you have the grace periods argument too, and the fact you told reception you would be longer (you can state that as an honest witness if this goes to a full hearing over the case). You have a perfectly defendable case.

Now what about your £255 fee, or did you qualify for help with court fees?

The_Deep

Have you complained to your MP?

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Gypsygold

Mine is not the 10 minute overstay case, that was Melissa who has unintentionally added her story to my thread so things look a little confusing. Mine is a case from almost 2 years ago so I don't know who was driving and had never seen any o.f the paperwork.

I am hoping that CEL will discontinue but if not then I need to build on my defence very soon. I am a little concerned that this judge's opinion may the opinion of all those in the Cambridge area because of Beavis/Parking Eye which was heard in Cambridge. Time will tell.

Re the £255 - he wouldn't refund but has reserved costs.

Gypsygold

The Deep, I will be complaining to my MP and anything else I can do to campaign against these companies. I did read the CJC response to the Ministry of Justice consultation on Default County Court Judgements. It makes for interesting reading and has some reasonable suggestions although it doesn't solve the problem entirely.

I can't add links I don't think but I will try:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/cjc-response-on-ccjs-jan2018.pdf

And I shall look up Greg Knight's private members bill.

Coupon-mad

Gypsygold wrote: »

Mine is not the 10 minute overstay case, that was Melissa who has unintentionally added her story to my thread so things look a little confusing. Mine is a case from almost 2 years ago so I don't know who was driving and had never seen any o.f the paperwork.

Ah sorry, the confusion caused when hijackers post is always a pain.

I am glad he has reserved costs - if CEL do not proceed now, or discontinue, make sure you write to the Judge by name and tell him what they've done and ask for your costs to be awarded against the Claimant.

And don't forget your costs if CEL do pursue it to a hearing, you are currently over £300 down on the bargain due to travel, and loss of leave/salary (if applicable) to take at least one day off for this hearing (and maybe a second).

Two years ago, CEL certainly DID NOT use POFA wording and categorically cannot hold you liable as keeper. There are cases to support this fact.

Excel v Smith and Excel v Lamoureux (more than one hearing) are both cases to cite about that - and the former was a case heard by a Senior Circuit Judge on appeal when a local DJ erred in law about...keeper liability! Excel and CEL both used non POFA PCNs.

Both transcripts are in the Parking Prankster's case law pages; there to be used.

Gypsygold

Many thanks, I'll look those up.

I have now been to the car park in question and although part of the BPA there is nothing on the signs to say as much. I think most likely there is a lot wrong with the signage, in addition to the non-POFA PCN. I'm not sure whether to pursue that as a line of defence when in actual fact if I can prove non-POFA compliance and no proof of driver then I as keeper can't be held liable anyway.

Coupon-mad

Signage is 100% needed in defence. Every time. It's the contract they relying on so you must always shoot it down, even when you were not the driver.

If you have proof of not driving, then the DJ was talking out of his bum about the POFA!

Umkomaas

Gypsygold wrote: »

Many thanks, I'll look those up.

I have now been to the car park in question and although part of the BPA there is nothing on the signs to say as much. I think most likely there is a lot wrong with the signage, in addition to the non-POFA PCN. I'm not sure whether to pursue that as a line of defence when in actual fact if I can prove non-POFA compliance and no proof of driver then I as keeper can't be held liable anyway.

Did you get your own photos of the signage?

Gypsygold

I did, but obviously they are from now and not 2 years ago. It will be interesting to see if they provide proof of signage from 2 years ago - I suspect they won't be able to.

a6915137

Hi Gypsygold any luck with your hearing court !