CEL letter before action help (I now have a court claim form??)

Coupon-mad

You simply copy the paragraph order shown in all the other 2024 CEL defences, which include an extra point that I keep saying to include (and it isn't just CEL v Chan).

Please search for other CEL defence threads.

Copy.

Show us. 

DisabledandConfused

Coupon-mad said:

You simply copy the paragraph order shown in all the other 2024 CEL defences, which include an extra point that I keep saying to include (and it isn't just CEL v Chan).

Please search for other CEL defence threads.

Copy.

Show us. 

Thank you for your response and continued help.

I have copied and pasted the defence laid out in the newbies thread and have adapted it to fit the CEL v Chan paragraphs and images in other CEL defences. 

"5. The defendant was a visitor of the hotel, to which the car park was attached, and was parked within the designated hotel bays for disability access with both disability badge and timer displayed and set correctly. It is of note that any signage is inappropriately high up and not lit and therefore not visible from the disabled parking bay at night. 
 
6. Signage states parking is free for all visitors of the hotel. 
 
7.     The Defendant does not believe that the Claimant complied with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) in terms of 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and in terms of serving a compliant Notice to Keeper ('NTK').  The POC is unhelpfully silent about the supposed basis of liability. It does not state whether the Defendant is being pursued under the POFA nor where/how they obtained his data, nor does it even state (as parking claims usually do) that they are pursuing the Defendant as keeper/driver.  These POC seem even more defective than seen from this same Claimant in the Chan case. 

  

8.     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 the Defendant will raise 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 these pleadings attempting to allege keeper 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. That is, if they are seeking keeper liability under the POFA at all, which the Court and Defendant are being forced to guess. 
 
 

9. 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. It is denied that the Defendant became liable for the parking charge on the date shown, or at all. 
 
 

10. 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. 

I have then re-numbered the following paragraphs in the template to suit and it now totals 37 paragraphs (does that sound correct to you?)"

I have also filled in my own information where required (eg name and case number).

LDast

Regarding your para #10, you may be better off adding the following as an additional "Preliminary Matter" and proved a legal basis, not just a self regulated basis for requesting the claim be dismissed at allocation stage:

Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out

#. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

Coupon-mad

Yes add that too.

I am glad you found the extra CEL defence point about the payment due date.

DisabledandConfused

Hi all!
I have now received my N180 form in the mail. Is there a way to do this online? Part of my diasbility means that I cant handwrite and need my carer to do it but If I can do it online that would be preferable.

KeithP

Remember that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence?

You now need to be reading items 8, 9 and 10 on that list.
Can all be done online.

DisabledandConfused

Just received today from CEL, their Witness statment for court. Im really stressed about going to court. It is well over 50 pages of legal stuff 

DisabledandConfused

This is just page 1 of about 58 

KeithP

Have you filed and served your Witness Statement and evidence yet?
If not, what is your deadline for doing that?

The simple fact that you have received their WS is a strong indicator that yours is due.

Look again at your Notice of Allocation. The Notice that gives the hearing date.

Is there not a paragraph something like:

Each party must deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than [ . . . ] [14 days before the hearing].

Might be on the back.

Those 'documents on which you intend to rely' are your Witness Statement and evidence.

DisabledandConfused

There was, I had the most unfortunate situation that I confused the deadline with a different one for submitting legal paperwork (also facing court for my PIP claim not going through). It was supposed to be yesterday and I submitted it to the court today with an apology for the delay in the hope they still take it. I have so much going on that I genuinely forgot but luckily I had typed it all up already. Have I totally shot myself in the foot?