Payment Didn't Go Through = Fine & Impending Court!

Spaceconcept

Not had anything back from Civil Enforcement from the SAR.
Can I expect something before I file my defence?

Need to do that by the end of the month.

Coupon-mad

Prepare the concise defence anyway, as you know from everything you've read here (I hope) that a SAR can take 30 days. You can't miss your defence deadline.

Umkomaas

Spaceconcept wrote: »

Not had anything back from Civil Enforcement from the SAR.
Can I expect something before I file my defence?

Need to do that by the end of the month.

When did you send your SAR? You haven't updated the thread with the date.

We can't give the advice you are requiring if you do not provide the basics to keep us informed.

Spaceconcept

SAR was emailed on the 5th.

I wouldn't risk missing the deadline, just wondered if it is common for CE Ltd to take the full 30 days to return the info.

KeithP

Spaceconcept wrote: »

...just wondered if it is common for CE Ltd to take the full 30 days to return the info.

Yes.

It is a chore for them. There is no money in responding to a SAR.

beamerguy

Spaceconcept wrote: »

SAR was emailed on the 5th.

I wouldn't risk missing the deadline, just wondered if it is common for CE Ltd to take the full 30 days to return the info.

They have 30 days, You have wait.
The problem CEL has is if they fail to reply, then it's ICO time

Spaceconcept

1. The Defendant XXXXX denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. A contract was not formed with the Defendant. The Claimant had prior knowledge that the Defendant was not in charge of the vehicle between 19:54 and 22:24 on 04/04/2018.
The Claimant has no valid claim against the Defendant as the Claimant had been made aware from the first appeal that the Defendant’s wife Mrs XXXXX was in charge of the vehicle.
The original appeal and online correspondence is not available to the Defendant. The earliest correspondence the Defendant has a record of is a letter sent to Civil Enforcement dated 24/05/2018. The letter is from the Defendant’s wife - Mrs XXXXXX, in which she states that she drove vehicle registration XXXX into the car park at 2 Athenaeum Road, London on 04/04/2018. Mrs XXXXX also states in the letter that is was she who registered her card details and made payment to the payment line 01414040000. The Defendant’s wife also provided the Claimant with proof of the telephone call to the Claimants payment line.

4. The Defendant’s wife made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking by using an approved payment channel.
a. Payment for parking was made via telephone using a cashless system provided by PayByPhone. The Defendant’s wife provided proof of the telephone call to the Claimant’s payment line in correspondence dated 24/05/2018. The telephone call lasted 4 minutes, the length of time corresponding with providing by keypad the car registration, parking location and payment card details.
b. This is a distance contract which requires certain information to be supplied in advance.
c. The service makes no provision for the printing of a ticket to display.
d. The Defendant’s wife followed the PayByPhone instructions exactly as shown on the signage at the payment machine and entered her payment card details as instructed.
e. The payment channel did not indicate any failure to make payment. As such the Defendant’s wife believed the necessary payment had been made.
f. The failure of the payment service to accept payment is not the Defendant or Defendant’s wife’s responsibility. It is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment.
5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at 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 £100. The claim includes an additional £82.00, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

7. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

8. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Spaceconcept

Comments welcome

Spaceconcept

After a long wait, I have finally had some correspondence.

The letter is entitled 'Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track' asking if I agree to mediation. Should I agree to this? It does say I do not need to settle, so seems the right course of action.
There's a questionnaire too.

Any advice?

Thanks,

Chris

Umkomaas

Any advice?

Have a look in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 where we have had legal expert input to explain exactly how to deal with the questions you've asked.