Court Action - Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) parking with 'No Permit'

Shadowfax1000

So I've sent the courts my DQ (CCBCAQ@justice.gov.uk)

Just to check ...  is it correct that I now need to send CEL my DQ?


By the way anyone following this -  I found these email addresses below for CEL on this forum and I plan to send to all 3.
Almost impossible to find on there website, I don't think the first 2 are on at all. How did anyone find them!! Is that a normal business!!?

office@ce-service.co.uk

Legal3@ce-service.co.uk

dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk

Le_Kirk

All correct but of course you would not use the DPO one for serving the DQ.  If CE have communicated with you by e-mail you could use the address they used.

Shadowfax1000

Ah I was thinking the DPO email is actually the most likely to be still working and it doesn't do any harm to CC that one as it can just be forwarded (esp. if you specifically request they forward to relevant parties etc) You think?

No previous comms from CEL via email. 

Coupon-mad

No, we say do not send court documents to a data privacy SAR email address.

Shadowfax1000

Ah right ok, glad I asked 

Just the first two emails then.

I went for Leeds Courts btw, see what they think about it all then ... the long wait continues.

Thanks all for holding my hand with this   

Coupon-mad

We need you to stick around though, while you await allocation and WS and evidence stage to come around.

Please do us and yourself (and the driving public) a favour and stick around on this forum every week - at least for the Summer - to ensure you see when the Government publish and open the final Technical Consultation.

We will be talking about it and the public will have about 4 weeks we think, to tell the MHCLG what you think about the level of parking charges, that the MHCLG has admirably decided already will start at £50 (50% discount) and not £100:

Outcome of 2020 Consultation (look what the public comments achieved so far):

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/parking-code-enforcement-framework/outcome/parking-code-enforcement-framework-consultation-response

Planned Summer 2021 additional Public Consultation:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-open-technical-consultation-on-fairer-parking-charges

It's not open yet but please keep checking back here to see when it is. 

We need real people like you to counter the spamming that happened last time from the industry.

Shadowfax1000

Of course 

Shadowfax1000

I have an update ...

- Mid July, moved to Leeds
- About a month later, moved on to Bradford 
- Just over a week ago, received 'General Form of Judgement or Order' stating 'The claim is struck out as an abuse of process'

I'll try and get the whole letter up for the reasons as it may be of interest to others, but in short it looks like that's it!

A rather damp squib of an ending but I'm sure the amazingly clear and sharp defense provided by the wonderful people on this forum helped enormously.

I'd like to know if there is anything more I can do. Can I claim for costs incurred (just to hurt CEL where it hurts them most)

Surely an abuse of process is a serious matter.

Also on the Money Claim site it does not have this judgement it only goes up to the matter moving to Leeds. Is that just slow admin?

Shadowfax1000

Here's the letter ....

General Form of Judgement or Order

CEL 1st Claimant

ME 1st Defendant

Before Distinct Judge Hickinbottom sitting at the County Court at Bradford, Civil And Family Centre, Exchange Square, Drake Street. Bradford. BD1 1JA.

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

 

Reasons

 

The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis, which expressly approved the parking charge because it included costs of administration. Additionally, s71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires the Court to consider the fairness of a contract term and the provision for additional charges falls into examples 6, 10 and 14 of the indicative list of unfair terms in Schedule 2 of that Act. It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

 

This Order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and a party affected by the Order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed not more than 7 days after the date the Order was served upon that party.

 

Dated ……

KeithP

Shadowfax1000 said:

Also on the Money Claim site it does not have this judgement it only goes up to the matter moving to Leeds. Is that just slow admin?

It won't ever show on the MCOL website.
Once a Claim is transferred away from the County Court Business Centre to a Hearing Court, that is the end of the usefulness of the MCOL website and the Claim History seen there.