CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD have filed a CCJ for old address

Umkomaas · 22 September 2018 at 9:57PM

To me, it looks they have got all the wordings as listed

Not to me it doesn't.

Where is the PoFA required warning? Have you pedantically checked it all against Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, not the Parking Cowboys site? It must be done to get in front of them, not behind them on this.

Please read my signature about 'giving a man a fish' or 'teaching him how to catch fish' ...... says it all! This !!!!!! is here to stay in one form or another, learn how to catch fish and you'll never go hungry in this context.

sppc42 · 23 September 2018 at 1:30PM

Thanks, that really helped. These legal words sometime confuse me outright, but the guidance helped. I had again a read of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and could formulate this argument -

"The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reason
- The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, Civil Enforcement Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

As the Notice to Keeper is not POFA 2012 compliant, the charge liability cannot transfer from the driver to the registered keeper. Futher, Civil Enforcement Ltd has not referenced that they are attempting to transfer the liability for the PCN from the unknown driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle using PoFA 2012, and so in their assumption, they continue to hold the driver responsible. As such, it must first be considered whether they are confident that they know who the driver of the vehicle is, based on the evidence that has been submitted by Civil Enforcement Ltd. It then needs to pursue the driver for the charge, not the registered keeper. If Civil Enforcement Ltd, however, claims that their notices need not be POFA compliant, then they have no legal right to pursue the keeper. They would, thus, need to identify and pursue the driver on the day on the alleged day with sufficient proof, as the keeper out-rightly denies being the driver on the said day"

Further:

POFA 2012 requires that an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met. As sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) highlights a NTK much adhere to the following points:
The notice must be given by—
warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

Upon reviewing the NTK, Civil EnforcementLtd have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f).

Civil Enforcement Ltd. could only potentially enforce this charge against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was.

Civil Enforcement Ltd. are attempting to transfer the charge to the appellant. They have no legal grounds to do so.

Finally:

Civil Enforcement Ltd has not referenced that they are attempting to transfer the liability for the PCN from the unknown driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle using PoFA 2012, and so in its mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, we must first consider whether we are confident that we know who the driver of the vehicle is, based on the evidence that has been submitted. If, however, unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver of the vehicle. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal however, as I have allowed the appeal I will not be taking these into account.

I hope I have got it correct this time. Kindly let me know.

Coupon-mad · 24 September 2018 at 3:36AM

Please remove that ParkingCowboys link as it has a dodgy link we do not recommend that ANYONE even looks at, let alone follows it and thinks it's a good idea.

Sadly and embarrassingly, Trustpilot tells you very differently.

Remove the ParkingCowboys link now please, from your post above, or I for one won't reply as I cannot risk more newbies seeing it and thinking the link in the PC website is worth following.

sppc42 · 24 September 2018 at 6:23AM

Sure, removed it from the post.

Would you be please able to comment on my previous post with the non-POFA argument for the claim dismissal?

Also, if its valid, should I get it added to the WS as an addendum as I still have over a week for the hearing.

Kindly let me know. Thanks.

Coupon-mad · 24 September 2018 at 11:41AM

Yes it's a decent argument - except that the 9(2)f warning is on the bottom of the tear-off slip, which is not part of the PCN as such, but a payment slip. That would depend how a Judge views it, but certainly do not point that hidden afterthought wording out.

It would be easier NOT to go into so much detail, and just say that it is a non-POFA PCN. No quoting from specific parts of Schedule 4, just that the Claimant has not met the requirements of Sch4, which are not just limited to the NTK.

As you will know - we hope - from reading the POFA Sch4 (which is dead easy to read) there are also requirements for:

- adequate notice of the parking charge on clear signage
- a relevant contract, or a relevant 'obligation' on the driver to do something.

You do not need an addendum to a WS, and anyway the above is a legal argument, not for a WS. You could put together a skeleton argument to help focus yourself with a script of your defence arguments. Again, we hope by now, you will know all this from the NEWBIES thread and have seen the difference between a WS and an (optional) skeleton argument.

sppc42 · 24 September 2018 at 11:48AM

Thanks, that makes lots sense now.

Finally, i had raised a SAR to CEL and they have replied back few weeks back (finally) with the PCN and other details held with them. Do I need to submit that before the hearing into the court? Or is it for CEL to provide that to the court?

Thanks

Umkomaas · 24 September 2018 at 11:52AM

except that the 9(2)f warning is on the bottom of the tear-off slip, which is not part of the PCN as such, but a payment slip.

I didn't spot that on the payment slip - focus on iPad not good enough to see it, very blurred, but having been drawn to attention, I can just about make bits of it out. That said, there's the preamble for the keeper, then it moves on to the hire company, at which stage a keeper is unlikely to read, or beyond. Then the 28-day warning kicks in.

As said, wonder what a Judge would make of it ........ if brought to their attention - leave that job to CEL.

sppc42 · 24 September 2018 at 12:00PM

I extracted the text from the payment slip - its below

----
Please detach this payment slip and return it with your payment. You should write the PCN number on the reverse of your cheque. The reasonable cause for obtaining your details from the DVLA is to enable the collection of kes.You may notify the Information Commissioner and/or the DVLA if you believe your data has been used inappropriately. We have photographic evidence of this incident. It is the driver's responsibility to pay the parking chage in respect of the period of parking and the parking charges have not been paid in full. The Creditor does not know both the name of the driver and the current address for service for the driver. We therefore invite you to paytte unpaid parking charge; or if you were not the driver of the vehicle, to notify us of the name ofthe driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice to the driver. If you area vehicle hire company and the vehide was hired out at the time the parking took place, please let us know and provide a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under that agreement. If after a period et 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this Notice is given, the amount of the unpaid parking charges has not been paid in full, and we still do not know both the name of the driver and the current address for smite for the driver (and in the case of a vehide hire company we have not received copies of the aforementioned documents), we will have the right to recover from you no much of that amount as remains unpaid. Civil Enforcement Ltd. Email: office@ce-service.co.uk Company Registration Number 05645677. Registered in England. Registered Office as above.
----

Coupon-mad · 24 September 2018 at 1:20PM

Love this typo! I smite thee!

If after a period et 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this Notice is given, the amount of the unpaid parking charges has not been paid in full, and we still do not know both the name of the driver and the current address for smite for the driver

i had raised a SAR to CEL and they have replied back few weeks back (finally) with the PCN and other details held with them. Do I need to submit that before the hearing into the court? Or is it for CEL to provide that to the court?

It is for CEL to prove their case, but take along the SAR with you, in case they turn up and show different photos or PCN than the one you were sent under that SAR!

You'd then object, of course. Look at every detail, of everything.

Castle · 24 September 2018 at 1:32PM

The "date posted" is missing from the PCN.

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD have filed a CCJ for old address

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free