Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) – POPLA Appeal Advice

Han_Solo

Thanks, I was getting myself a bit confused. I won't submit anything further via MCOL as instructed.

I've checked another thread and see that the correct email address is CCBCAQ@justice.gov.uk. Given that it can take a few days to register receipt in MCOL should I submit sooner rather than later (so I can chase if necessary before my deadline)? I assume there's no benefit to submitting as late as possible.

KeithP

I wrote this post earlier this evening.

It answers your questions.

nosferatu1001

Its the filing date that matters, of course. 

Han_Solo

Given the pointer in the newbies thread that some parking companies (including CEL) are known to issue NTKs that do not comply with POFA, I endeavoured to confirm whether this applied in my case on the basis that they may have wised up. However, I now realise that I made a mistake in believing that it was compliant.

I see from a recent thread started by RobinHill titled "Civil Enforcement NTK" that I missed an important point regarding the 28 day period after which the parking company has the right to pursue the keeper on the basis that the driver has not been named. My NTK is similar in that CEL state that the 28 day period is counted from the "issue date" whereas POFA 9(2)(f) prescribes a "given date" that is not equivalent. I have attached an extract of the wording from my NTK.

Do you suggest I write to CEL on this matter or are they likely to ignore me given that my case is now in the process of being allocated at my local county court (since the beginning of this month)? If they are likely to ignore, I presume that I could and should highlight this prominently within my witness statement.

Mea culpa, but hopefully not too late to do something about it.

KeithP

That 28 days that you mention - the 28 days before they pass the alleged debt to a debt collector - is nothing to do with POFA and transferring liability to or from the keeper.

Han_Solo

KeithP said:

That 28 days that you mention - the 28 days before they pass the alleged debt to a debt collector - is nothing to do with POFA and transferring liability to or from the keeper.

Okay, but I'm now confused. That's the very text you refer to in the other thread where you state it is not compliant with POFA. What am I missing?
Thanks

KeithP

Sorry, I think my post Today at 8:37PM could've been clearer.

The point I was trying to make was that the wording in that image you showed us...

...is nothing to do with POFA and transferring liability to or from the keeper.

That's the only point I was making. When, or indeed if, an account is forwarded to a debt recovery agency is nothing to do with POFA.

But you are right - it is confusing. I'll leave it to someone else to comment further.

Coupon-mad

You simply need to see if the 9(2)f keeper liability warning is in the NTK. 

CEL have two versions; one has nothing like that, front of or back, and one has the 9(2)f words but hides it at the top on the back in a section about hire vehicles.  Arguably neither are compliant which is why the NEWBIES thread in post #1 says CEL are not POFA compliant.   I've always said that in the NEWBIES and would never have described their NTKs as POFA ones. 

CEL know it's not compliant but they don't care and it hardly affects them in most cases so there's no point writing to them thinking it's an earth-shattering new piece of information they won't have noticed!

Just cover this at WS stage if the Defendant wasn't driving.  If they were, it is usually better to do a WS as driver and talk about what happened and how bad the signs were and why they can't add £60/£70 or more in fake costs.  Example WS I wrote this week, in the thread by @painbl

While you are here:

Please now make a real difference - A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER.

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters, and MUST GO because that is unfair and illegal.

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!

Han_Solo

Coupon-mad said:

You simply need to see if the 9(2)f keeper liability warning is in the NTK. 

CEL have two versions; one has nothing like that, front of or back, and one has the 9(2)f words but hides it at the top on the back in a section about hire vehicles.  Arguably neither are compliant which is why the NEWBIES thread in post #1 says CEL are not POFA compliant.   I've always said that in the NEWBIES and would never have described their NTKs as POFA ones. 

CEL know it's not compliant but they don't care and it hardly affects them in most cases so there's no point writing to them thinking it's an earth-shattering new piece of information they won't have noticed!

Just cover this at WS stage if the Defendant wasn't driving.  If they were, it is usually better to do a WS as driver and talk about what happened and how bad the signs were and why they can't add £60/£70 or more in fake costs.  Example WS I wrote this week, in the thread by @painbl

*snip*

Thanks to you and KeithP.
I have one of the latter where the 9(2)(f) words are hidden on the back. You actually replied to me on that point before I submitted my defence, I just forgot about it in my enthusiasm.

Han_Solo

I have now received further directions from my local court (Luton) – letter dated 14 October 2020.

The notice of allocation to the small claims track states the hearing date as 14 January 2021, and all documents to be relied on at the hearing must be delivered by 11 November 2020. The Claimant has until 14 December 2020 to pay the trial fee.

Similar to some other threads dealing with Luton County Court a further judgement was enclosed stating that the hearing must be conducted remotely due to current circumstances. However, the judgement I have received appears to vary in that it lays all responsibility on the parties to make arrangements for the hearing to take place remotely. This is disappointing because I would prefer to limit my contact with CEL.

Some highlights:

3. The parties must contact each other immediately to agree the most appropriate method for conducting the adjourned hearing remotely.

4. A Judge has determined that this is a case which may be suitable for determination on the papers, if parties agree pursuant to the provisions of CPR 27.10. The parties are to notify the court within 14 days of deemed service of this order if they do so agree.

5. If the parties do not agree, the adjourned hearing will be by Skype, Cloud Video Platform (CVP) or another suitable provider.

6. It is the parties' responsibility to make appropriate arrangements for the hearing to take place remotely.

7. The parties are to send to the court and to the other parties, by no later than 7 days before the hearing details of the arrangements they have made for the remote hearing.

8. The responsibility for communication with the court shall lie with the Claimant's solicitors.

Reading it again it seems to suggest I only need to notify the court if I agree with having the case determined on the papers (I don't, of course). Regardless, I assume it wouldn't hurt to object in writing to be sure. Is the template on page 10 of the telephone hearings thread still the current version? Given I only have 14 days to object I intend to deal with that first so I can put more effort into my witness statement and associated submissions after, unless there is a potential benefit in combining them.

Have I missed anything? Thanks