Civil Enforcement Ltd issued court proceedings

1505grandad

Just checking  -  has the WS for dad been filed and served?

Coupon-mad

My point exactly! Hopefully not running late.

waca1878

Copy letter below 

waca1878

Coupon-mad said:

My point exactly! Hopefully not running late.

Yes I read and followed all the advice in the
newbies thread. WS is not yet served but still within time. 

Coupon-mad

waca1878 said:

Copy letter below 

Thanks. Useful evidence for the DLUHC.

That shows that, having spent a £35 court fee and gone as far as a court hearing date, an in-house parking litigation team (headed by a barrister) is content to receive the original amount of the PCN (£100) plus the claim filing fee.

Thus, there is no justification whatsoever in adding £70 as an aggressive 'cluebat' to try to extort £170 from victims at pre-action stage.

I am so glad you are on top of WS stage. Don't forget Dad needs the the transcript of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward as an exhibit.  Plus the usual a-f listed exhibits seen in the NEWBIES thread.

waca1878

Not had to do this before so had to rely heavily on the example witness statements in the newbies thread. Link to draft below. I’d be very grateful for any feedback as WS is due shortly. Presumably it’s okay to email the WS? 

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AsVEB6kfXxqmkAb8NwX45911YoNd

waca1878

WS needs to be sent this week so will submit Friday. 

Coupon-mad

You could remove 5, 6 and 7 and just use the 'judgments' PDF as one single exhibit that includes Chan and all the more recent decisions (more than those you have listed).  The judgments link is in the a-f list of recommended exhibits in the NEWBIES thread.

Para 9 talks about "dates of PCNs" (plural) but then ends talking about a single PCN. 

Para 13 talks about persuasive decisions about keeper liability being made "twice" but then you only adduce one of the two cases.

The other one is Excel v Smith and if you search the forum for Gargan Smith witness statement you will find loads where both exhibits are in.

In the original claim POC are CEL asking for £170 plus court fees or asking for £182?

Is this a claim by CEL in-house or by DCB Legal for CEL?

Do yon have their WS yet? If not, maybe they've already discontinued?

waca1878

Thanks a lot for that, I’ll amend those parts. Yes I have there witness statement. It’s from CEL in house. They are asking for £188.56 + court fee and costs 

Coupon-mad

Right. So isn't there anything in their WS or evidence you want to shoot down?

Also add this stuff seen in CEL cases:

There is a further matter negating any cause of action, namely an incorrect 'payment due date' in the POC.  This point relies on Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of the POFA and gives rise to various issues, including probable non-compliant NTK wording and an apparently incorrect statement in the POC regarding what appears to be the alleged date of keeper liability ('payment due date').  This has the object or effect of the Claimant's pleadings attempting to allege liability wrongfully, and/or earlier than the law would allow.

The Claimant's POC has unreasonably shortened the statutory 28 day period by several days or even weeks, which has had the additional unreasonable effect of backdating interest incorrectly.  Even if posted 1st class on the same day as the alleged event (which it cannot have been) a NTK would be deemed served two working days later.  Adding the POFA's statutory 28 days starting with the day after service of the NTK, the soonest that the 'right to recover' might exist would have been several days later than this Claimant states in their POC.

This appears to be unreasonable conduct, and other similar cases in the public domain demonstrate that this Claimant's in-house legal team are stating a premature 'payment due date' calculation routinely, which inflates the interest as well as breaching the POFA.

Further, the POC only pleads for 'a parking charge for breach' yet it says 'charges of GBP170 claimed'.  Under the British Parking Association Code of Practice, parking charges are capped at £100 maximum and it cannot have been £170.  It is denied that exorbitant sum was due, properly incurred and/or displayed as the 'parking charge' on prominent signage.