PCN with County Court N1 form (Civil Enforcement Limited)

Ed2022

Hi sorry again to ask for some advice, thank you @C_Angelhttps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6390505/civil-enforcement-claim-form/p3 as I have used your template. I didn't spot the anomaly re the post codes so thank you.

Another was the incident date and the first letter / NTK plus that same letter says the PCN was issued that same day the TK has been sent.

Notice to Keeper - POFA breach

1.     The alleged breach of contract as stated in the Particulars of Claim is on the 21/07/2018. The Defendant having made a Subject Access Request (DPA 2018), it does not contain and neither does the Claimant provide evidence that a Notice to Driver (NTD) was left on the vehicle on the date of alleged breach (21/07/2018).

2.     In correspondence that has been allegedly sent to the Keeper, it is dated 06/09/2018 and this same correspondence bizarrely claims to be the date Parking Charge Notice is issued - 45 days after the date stated on particulars of claim (21/07/2018).

3.     The NTK letter 06/09/2018 does not state that a NTD was left.

4.     The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9(4) of the Act. The Claimant cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to the keeper (the Defendant).

Is that a cogent argument re NTK breach?

Coupon-mad

Yes, that's fine. Presumably the NTK was also worded in a vague non-keeper liability way, with no attempt to state the mandatory keeper liability warning in 9(2)f being the giveaway.

Ed2022

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, that's fine. Presumably the NTK was also worded in a vague non-keeper liability way, with no attempt to state the mandatory keeper liability warning in 9(2)f being the giveaway.

Thank you. On the previous page and it was vague.

Ed2022

Spoken to the courts and apparently the Claimant has asked for a stay?

@Coupon-mad can they without my permission?
Anything I can do?

Coupon-mad

Ed2022 said:

Spoken to the courts and apparently the Claimant has asked for a stay?

@Coupon-mad can they without my permission?
Anything I can do?

What stage was it at, exactly? 

Ed2022

Coupon-mad said:

Ed2022 said:

Spoken to the courts and apparently the Claimant has asked for a stay?

@Coupon-mad can they without my permission?
Anything I can do?

What stage was it at, exactly? 

I had sent my defence statement.

Coupon-mad

I'd email the Claimant and ask what is the reason for the stay, and if they fail to apply to lift the stay in a timely manner in 2023, you will consider the claim ended.

You refuse to be played like this and will not be beholden to a rogue parking operator forever, expected to remember to update your address every time you move...potentially for the rest of your life.  There must be certainty and finality to a meritless parking claim.  Not held in limbo forever, ready to be dusted off at the Claimant's whim; this is wholly unreasonable conduct in litigation.

Should they later decide (years down the line) to apply to lift the stay out of the blue, they MUST NOT presume that your current service address is still good.  

They know how to contact you by email and can also do a bulk 'soft trace' for 28 pence (mandatory in the new incoming DLUHC statutory Code of Practice) and they must not just resurrect the matter later, without making efforts to ensure the correct address for service at the time.

Copy in the local court and require that your email be placed on file for a Judge to review, if ever this rogue Claimant decides to dust a few 'stayed' cases off and try to extract default CCJs by stealth, knowing most victim Defendants will move house and be caught out and will miss a late N180 DQ served to what is bound to be old addresses.  This is no way to conduct litigation.

You will stick around here to do the upcoming Public Consultation, @Ed2022?  You ready to join us soon for that vital chance to change the law?

Ed2022

@Coupon-mad thank you for the really detailed reply. I will reply in the same fashion and address in the fashion you’ve said and seemed quite odd to send an application then stay it.

I will definitely be sticking around and responding to the consultation.

Ed2022

By way of update, I heard from CCBC via email.

As the claimant has not responded to the defence, within 33 days, the case will become stayed and no further action can be taken by claimant. If the claimant wishes to continue with the case, they will need to lift the stay and  fee for this type of application (N244) is £108.

Although the advice was that to end this claim the defendant has the options to contact directly the claimant and to settle the case pre-judgment.

Not ideal as not sure why it wasn't just thrown out.

B789

@Ed2022, you already contacted the Claimant on 23/09/2022 offering to settle for £45. Whilst that may have been made without prejudice, the later letter from the Claimant dated 03/10/2022 highlights your settlement offer of £45 but I note that that letter is not without prejudice.

Have you done as @Coupon-mad has advised above on 06/01/2023?