Civil Enforcement Limited - Defence

houseofcheshire

Umkomaas said:

houseofcheshire said:

Thank you for your replies. Sorry that I have lacked information, I will add it all onto this post. 

nosferatu1001 said:

We dont know what that letter is, unless you show it so we can see what exactly it says

PLease tell us:
- date of issue
- precise date you filed the AOS, and that you did so online
- is this defence based on the NEWBIES template? Before I open it I want to see if its worth doing so!

The date of issue was 09/07/2020, I filed the AOS online on the 14/07/2020. And yes the defence I have worked with is the template from the Newbie thread. I have attached an image file of the 'final reminder letter' with the added £75 (not £70 my mistake)

Thank you 

The £75 might be the very legitimate add-ons of £25 court filing fee and £50 (capped) legal fees. If so, they won't be part of the Abuse of Process element. We'll need to see the full breakdown if they issue a court claim. 

So I had a letter 'Claim Form' dated 9th July, this includes Total due £170 plus interest of £16.88 - £186.88. 
Then Court Fee £25 and Legal Rep costs of £50.  Totalling £261.88

I then received the Final Reminder letter stating the cost will increase by a further £75 dated 21st July 2020.

Redx

so the £70 is the abuse of process on that claim form

any chaser letter is irrelevant to the court claim (that final reminder) , the court claim is already in play and the amount already detailed, including the abuse of process charge that should not be there, making the real figure less than £200

houseofcheshire

Redx said:

tell us the amounts from the court claim , any other recent letters are irrelevant , some costs are allowed , so with a £100 pcn they can typically add £75 to £100 in court and legal fees , but tend to add extra charges which are an abuse of process and bump the claim up to say £250 to £275 ish

this is a live court claim, so the claim has already been issued, the other letter may be an error and has no bearting on the amounts claimed on the N1 claim form

reading the last posts it appears you have named the driver, in which case if you have done so in the defence then POFA wont apply

if you are defending as keeper and not driver, then your posts need editing to show what the driver did, using the words KEEPER, DRIVER , CLAIMANT , DEFENDANT etc

no "MY , ME , MYSELF & I"

if yuour defence is based on the coupon mad template defence, then just post the couple of paragraphs that are changed in a post below, plus any other changes, nobody is going to proof read the rest of coupon mads template when there is no need

ensure it has the april 2020 statement of truth at the bottom too

Hiya thanks for that. I don't actually think I have named the driver, I have accepted no responsibility and within the defence I have stated that the car actually has multiple insured drivers and thus no proof that it was me? 
I guess I just need to go through again and add in new keywords such as the Keeper, driver, defendant etc? Below is what I currently have.
"17. The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago. It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.

18. Having attended the supposed carpark upon receipt of this notice, I can confirm that signage is not apparent and given this alleged contravention was in the evening it is clear that signs can be easily missed.

The site has 4 different ‘private’ carparks within a very small vicinity, one of which being a council carpark. Without extremely clear signage it would be almost impossible to distinguish between Council and this, it is as though this is an intentional placement for manipulation."

Thanks again

Le_Kirk

Defence should be written in the Third Person, which means no "I" but "Defendant".

houseofcheshire

@Redx Thank you. So just to be clear on this, the letter dated 21/7 Final Reminder is irrelevant and in breach? The £75 that they're claiming to add on is not legal? is there anything that I should add within defence to highlight this to them?

Castle

Is this a "Drive-Thru" KFC?

houseofcheshire

Castle said:

Is this a "Drive-Thru" KFC?

It is yes, but also has designated car parking spots.

Castle

houseofcheshire said:

Castle said:

Is this a "Drive-Thru" KFC?

It is yes, but also has designated car parking spots.

But using the "Drive-Thru" is not parking; so any time spent queuing has to be disregarded.

Redx

I dont think there is any breach , its just a demand letter, but can be added to your evidence in a few months time to show incompetence and more abuse of the process etc

in your posts in this thread you have named the driver, we all know who it was, even if its not in your defence

claimants have been known to screenshot posts from here, think about it !!!!

houseofcheshire

Castle said:

houseofcheshire said:

Castle said:

Is this a "Drive-Thru" KFC?

It is yes, but also has designated car parking spots.

But using the "Drive-Thru" is not parking; so any time spent queuing has to be disregarded.

Sorry, must have been mistaken, this was not in the drive through. Although they actually haven't provided me with any evidence.