Rose of York/Civil Enforcement

mezzyd

Thanks C-M, witness statement & exhibits filed last week according to the order, top of the list is rubbish POCs as per Chan & Akande

1505grandad

".....witness statement & exhibits filed last week according to the order...."

Just checking  -  and they have been served on the Claimant?

mezzyd

Yes they have, thank you for checking!

mezzyd

We’re hoping to pressure CE on the refusal to cancel the PCN at the pub’s request, but wondering how to refute the argument that CE have been authorised to take legal action & it’s no longer at the behest of the landowner - any thoughts please?

Coupon-mad

Well if you have been served with their WS, surely you have their landowner authority. Which probably doesn't give them a right to sue, knowing CEL?

mezzyd

Their witness statement contains an assertion that they have landowner authority but it was not included as an exhibit so we don’t know what the agreement actually said

Coupon-mad

mezzyd said:

Their witness statement contains an assertion that they have landowner authority but it was not included as an exhibit so we don’t know what the agreement actually said

Then they should lose...

I lay repped a CEL case where they included it for the court but not for the Defendant. That isn't allowed but maybe it's their usual MO.

Try Chan and Akande first and then - if needed - this landowner authority omission l. Declare them as two 'preliminary matters' at the start and ask to speak first to raise them.

Your judge should be angry...

Even if the judge doesn't express an opinion on these shenanigans and carries on or says 'well they have filed a copy with the court', still attack this "abuse of the court process" (they can't send one bundle to court and a cherry-picked lesser bundle to the defendant!) and also suggest that CEL are often reported to work at sites only as agents, with no right to litigate in their own name.

Without a landowner contract to construe, the judge can't just guess because - if they don't have authority to sue - that presents three issues for the Claimant:

- they've breached the BPA Code para 7 that applied at the time;

- they can't litigate at all, because

- if they did (when only acting as agents) the landowner - who retains the right - could later sue you too!

The court cannot allow that scenario.

The court must determine whether CEL only have a contract to 'put some signs up and issue PCNs on behalf of the landowner' which isn't the same thing as making the contract their own.

This is distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis, where PEye did make the contract their own and had full landowner authority.

CEL's signs are likely to use the phrase 'on behalf of the landowner' ... am I right? Read the small print at the bottom of the sign.

If I am right, that points towards an agency agreement only, and no right to sue. A big clue to help the court determine that CEL cannot succeed.

mezzyd

Brilliant, thank you!

mezzyd

Just noticed that you suggested checking the signs, but actually that’s another thing missing from the exhibits! We don’t know anything about the alleged signage either...

Coupon-mad

mezzyd said:

Just noticed that you suggested checking the signs, but actually that’s another thing missing from the exhibits! We don’t know anything about the alleged signage either...

Ummmm...surely not?!