Source of Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44)

antigrifter

Hi all,

I'm working on a defence and temped to use E7GM9W44, but I'm in doubt about the following.

I did some digging on the forum and I understand that the images of the transcript do not originate from a source that can be referenced in court, so if it was challenged by a judge all I can say is "I found it on the Internet" – please correct me if I'm wrong.

In this light, how can I prove it's a real judgement and not something I created myself, or worse yet, a hoax launched by a parking company to catch out motorists?

I called the court and asked to confirm it, but they said they cannot disclose anything to a non-party.

Thank you!

Car1980

It's in the public domain and is a matter of public record.

Plus everything you submit is presumed to be true and accurate, which is why you make a declaration. It's up to the other side to disprove it if they felt otherwise, and obviously they can't with this because it is genuine.

Le_Kirk

That is CEL v Chan and can be found on the judgments link: -
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k6y9ppghkyxb9iclg23bz/Chan_Only.pdf?rlkey=knsu8d3g0w42gb3xiz6ocjfsj&dl=0

Coupon-mad

antigrifter said:

Hi all,

I'm working on a defence and temped to use E7GM9W44, but I'm in doubt about the following.

I did some digging on the forum and I understand that the images of the transcript do not originate from a source that can be referenced in court, so if it was challenged by a judge all I can say is "I found it on the Internet" – please correct me if I'm wrong.

In this light, how can I prove it's a real judgement and not something I created myself, or worse yet, a hoax launched by a parking company to catch out motorists?

I called the court and asked to confirm it, but they said they cannot disclose anything to a non-party.

Thank you!

Chan and Akande are proper court transcripts that judges will accept. But only certain cases can use those authorities. Can we help?

Show us the POC. Which PPC & solicitor?

Even if you don't need help right now, please don't disappear!

We need you! Please read this message and take time this month to do the vital current Public Consultation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

It's important that the Government hears from people like you with unfair charges who are dealing with scary court claims. That's when you win ... but most people don't know that these cases are a greedy scam and are winnable.

What a waste of court time and your time!

The link shows the two vital points to concentrate on, IMHO:

- banning 'fee' add-ons completely.

- making sure a new SINGLE appeals service replaces POPLA and the IAS which are seen as not fully independent and involved in a 'race to the bottom'.

Click through to the main thread about the Consultation.

Do not be deterred by the fact that some questions are for the parking industry only.

We are currently discussing how to respond. Please join us in doing this Consultation before it closes in three weeks. This is your one chance to make a difference re the proper regulation of private parking.

antigrifter

Thank you for your comments everyone, I appreciate the time you took to answer my question.

@Coupon-mad
To respond to your comment – I've had a look at the consultation, and feel like the proposals don't go nearly far enough. Why are some private individuals given access to citizen's personal data by the state, to begin with? The scope for abuse is immense and I wouldn't be surprised if it was already exploited by organised crime. This whole arrangement needs to be completely dismantled. All this "private parking company" and "industry association" non-sense is just a facade for a small group of private individuals. The threat of potential abuses of this system is so great in my opinion that it completely outweighs any benefits.

Coupon-mad

antigrifter said:

Thank you for your comments everyone, I appreciate the time you took to answer my question.

@Coupon-mad
To respond to your comment – I've had a look at the consultation, and feel like the proposals don't go nearly far enough. Why are some private individuals given access to citizen's personal data by the state, to begin with? The scope for abuse is immense and I wouldn't be surprised if it was already exploited by organised crime. This whole arrangement needs to be completely dismantled. All this "private parking company" and "industry association" non-sense is just a facade for a small group of private individuals. The threat of potential abuses of this system is so great in my opinion that it completely outweighs any benefits.

Agreed.

And no matter how the trade bodies bump up the 'costs' of debt recovery to fit their narrative and try to convince the Government, the fact remains that DRAs make no money from doing the right thing by consumers (acting on valid disputes at pre-action phase) and so the model that sees them only paid when they gouge money from the 'low hanging fruit' 13% of victims must be banned.

antigrifter

Coupon-mad said:

antigrifter said:

Thank you for your comments everyone, I appreciate the time you took to answer my question.

@Coupon-mad
To respond to your comment – I've had a look at the consultation, and feel like the proposals don't go nearly far enough. Why are some private individuals given access to citizen's personal data by the state, to begin with? The scope for abuse is immense and I wouldn't be surprised if it was already exploited by organised crime. This whole arrangement needs to be completely dismantled. All this "private parking company" and "industry association" non-sense is just a facade for a small group of private individuals. The threat of potential abuses of this system is so great in my opinion that it completely outweighs any benefits.

Agreed.

And no matter how the trade bodies bump up the 'costs' of debt recovery to fit their narrative and try to convince the Government, the fact remains that DRAs make no money from doing the right thing by consumers (acting on valid disputes at pre-action phase) and so the model that sees them only paid when they gouge money from the 'low hanging fruit' 13% of victims must be banned.

Yes, it's a joke. Do we have any stats on the victims? If it turns out that most people who pay them are unfairly targeted vulnerable, disadvantaged people who are unable to afford legal help or navigate the complexities of the process, this is a serious political issue.

Coupon-mad

We'd never know that (it would be way beyond the scope of what we could expect a DRA to know or release!) but it is likely, when you think about it. Old people often pay what they see as 'bills' without much fuss, for example.

Nellymoser

antigrifter said:

Coupon-mad said:

antigrifter said:

@Coupon-mad
To respond to your comment – I've had a look at the consultation, and feel like the proposals don't go nearly far enough. Why are some private individuals given access to citizen's personal data by the state, to begin with? The scope for abuse is immense and I wouldn't be surprised if it was already exploited by organised crime. This whole arrangement needs to be completely dismantled. All this "private parking company" and "industry association" non-sense is just a facade for a small group of private individuals. The threat of potential abuses of this system is so great in my opinion that it completely outweighs any benefits.

Agreed.
And no matter how the trade bodies bump up the 'costs' of debt recovery to fit their narrative and try to convince the Government, the fact remains that DRAs make no money from doing the right thing by consumers (acting on valid disputes at pre-action phase) and so the model that sees them only paid when they gouge money from the 'low hanging fruit' 13% of victims must be banned.

Yes, it's a joke. Do we have any stats on the victims? If it turns out that most people who pay them are unfairly targeted vulnerable, disadvantaged people who are unable to afford legal help or navigate the complexities of the process, this is a serious political issue.

There's some stats in this survey conducted by the AA in April. Focus was mainly on reasons for paying, appealing or not and choosing to ignore.

https://www.theaa.com/about-us/newsroom/drivers-pay-private-parking-charges-despite-not-being-at-fault

I agree with you the proposals don't go far enough and IMO some of the solutions suggested are the wrong ones. Q33 allows you to submit any other comments in relation to the proposals.