CEL - No opportunity to appeal PCN

Cody_09

Hi all,

I am preparing for court against CEL. I am going through their WS and noticed that I wasn't given the opportunity to appeal the initial PCN. PCN was sent to registered keeper, leasing company. CEL sent PCN to my address after 28 days have passed, demanding the increased charge of £100.

Is this another ground to argue on?

Coupon-mad

No but CEL v Chan is. 

Have you done your WS in time?

Cody_09

Okay, thanks Coupon-mad.

And yes, I did my WS in time. 

Coupon-mad

Cody_09 said:

Okay, thanks Coupon-mad.

And yes, I did my WS in time. 

Including CEL v Chan?  You need to get that in front of the Judge right now.

What did your recent WS bundle look like?

And what did your defence say?

UncleThomasCobley

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

Cody_09

Coupon-mad said:

Cody_09 said:

Okay, thanks Coupon-mad.

And yes, I did my WS in time. 

Including CEL v Chan?  You need to get that in front of the Judge right now.

What did your recent WS bundle look like?

And what did your defence say?

I didn't include CEL v Chan. I have only heard about CEL v Chan.

I have already sent my WS bundle to court, can I still send the transcript or shall I just take it to the hearing?

My defence is based on the lack of adequate signage and failing the ParkingEye v Bevis sign test.

Coupon-mad

You can't just take something to court. Not allowed.  Send a Supplementary WS now.

Cody_09

Thank you Coupon-mad.

Cody_09

Coupon-mad said:

You can't just take something to court. Not allowed.  Send a Supplementary WS now.

Any guidance on what to say in the note to accompany the supplementary WS, considering that the original date has passed?

Coupon-mad

Just the words already stated above.  Important to show this transcript to your Judge.

Cody_09

Coupon-mad said:

Just the words already stated above.  Important to show this transcript to your Judge.

Forgive my ignorance, but I have added the CEL v Chan transcript to the WS bundle now called Supplementary WS. Is  this correct or should I be sending just the transcript and the wordings as an Addendum?