CEL claim - stages after CCJ set aside

Coupon-mad

CliveTreeHorn said:

Yes sorry @JerryJ64 the judge said the order was for CEL to provide a more detailed POC. I am then to submit a defence. She didn't mention WS.

She asked me why I didn't accept CEL's offer and I said I am still unaware of what the alleged offence is, as the POC is defective and have received no documentation from CEL. I did bring up the CEL Vs Chan case, however the judge did not want to discuss it. 

Looks like this will rumble on then, but my defence is weakened. 

So glad you got the CCJ set aside!  Some Judges are tough.  Well done!

Now, about your costs...

I did prepare you for what to say about the Consent Order and in particular that they were likely to do it to try to swerve your costs.

Did you say the below (I typed it all out for you to use at the hearing) and got your £275 costs awarded - or at least reserved?

Please reassure us you asked for your costs to be reserved until the next hearing if she wouldn't grant them to be refunded by CEL?
If not, your costs have disappeared (left for you to shoulder) which is what I was trying to help you avoid:

We've seen CEL send the court a draft Order (sometimes without copying in the Defendant) made to look like a CONSENT ORDER.  With your name on.   Stating that CEL consents to the CCJ set aside with 'no order as to costs'. 

They do this to swerve your costs and to make more credulous rookie Judges think this is a nice convenient way to resolve the case in 5 minutes and get it off their list and the Judge hardly lets the Defendant speak and just rubber-stamps it, thinking the pseudo 'Consent Order' is a good thing.

People have been caught out by that.

Be ready just in case. Object to it!  

Point out you know nothing about that, did not sign it (so it isn't a Consent Order) and they didn't copy you in so they are in breach of the CPRs.  Not only that, this is YOUR HEARING that YOU have paid £275 for, and from the outset it's clear that you require your costs back and should never have to shoulder that costs burden, given the fact that the evidence demonstrates CEL have breached the BPA Code of Practice and the CPRs by not taking reasonable steps to check the address before litigation.

A DVLA address is an unreliable (often out of date) car address database and IS NOT provided as an address for service of court papers to a person. And you changed it in 2022 anyway!

The delay in litigation and notorious unreliability of DVLA car addresses is why BPA CoP requires pre-litigation CRA address 'soft traces' (as do the Government in the new CoP).

CliveTreeHorn

I did have your comments in my notes, thank you again.

I mentioned my costs, but she was very dismissive. She asked what they were and I said the application and attendance in court, she then started telling me that the failure to update my DVLA address is a criminal offence, however this was not a criminal court, so not a matter for today. I explained that the DVLA address is not a service address and I was there to be found, as evidenced but the debt collectors letter. She wasn't impressed by this and said they knew my address because of the application, I demonstrated to her that they predated the application, but she wouldn't change her stance.

Tbh I forgot in the moment to ask for the costs to be reserved. Like I said she was tough, and the more time that passes since the heating, the more I feel it went badly.

Le_Kirk

CliveTreeHorn said:

Do you think, in your experience, that CEL will peruse this? 

No, but they might pursue it.  Presumably that was a spell checker correction; so important to check all documents, especially if being sent to a judge, for correct spelling and grammar. 

Coupon-mad

They'll discontinue now, because their trick (to wriggle out of paying your costs) worked on that rookie Judge.  She's an idiot IMHO.

What she said makes no sense.

CliveTreeHorn

Hi all,

So CEL have sent me amended particulars of claim. They allege I didn't have a ticket. 

I have recollections of the day (nearly two years ago!) that the parking app wasn't working so I bought a manual ticket, but shouldn't that show in their records?

I have an email from the day resetting the password for the app, 2 mins after I arrived. Also a transaction on my account for 1p to register a new card as the existing card on my account wasn't being accepted. When my 2nd card was also not accepted I gave up and bought a paper ticket, which I don't have a receipt for.

The ticket had an offer when you can reclaim money back from the nearby Morrisons, and I have a transaction of -49p from there as I used the ticket to buy a drink. 

It's really frustrating me that I don't have a photo of the ticket as it would squash this.

What are my options now? 

Prepare a defence based on the events and hope a judge takes pity on me? It didn't go well last time so I'm not confident.

Part of me is considering contacting them to see if I can settle out of court, I'd pay £60 now, although no doubt they will want more.

I thought I should re-visit the carpark to assess the signage.

Any help welcome!

Coupon-mad

Don't try to settle this. Carry on.

Why did they send detailed POC? Show us the Order that caused them to do that, and what you now have to do. A defence?

CliveTreeHorn

Okay, see below court order.

Coupon-mad

Hmmm...  I wonder if the fact she has not even mentioned costs one way or the other means you could potentially still get them from the next Judge.  Or are the £275 costs dead?

@Johnersh?
@bargepole?
@troublemaker22?

Johnersh

Generally, if an order is silent, then there are none.

D could ask for them if ultimately successful but it is clear from the comment/hearing report that the DJ was critical, perhaps suggesting the failure to update the record = a degree of own goal. It may be that the decision not to address costs was intentional 

CliveTreeHorn

So I will have to start preparing my defence. 

I take it I email this to the court and CEL when it's ready. 

Will CEL then respond with a counter defence ?

Really wish I had the original parking receipt.