CEL Coop Case now unstayed

[westmeadhawk]

As a result of the Beavis judgement we've recently received notice from the court that the previously stayed case needs to have a defence submitted. The old defence relied on the contract points which are no longer valid

Is it worth submitting a new defence based on any or all of the below points:

Driver was not registered keeper
87.5 % of debt was assigned to DEAL (I have copy of letter of assignment)
Car park address cited by CEL/DEAL is potentially wrong but that's hard to prove I feel.
I've also read that if I parked without being a customer of the Coop then I was an illegal occupier and did not enter in a contract...

Thoughts appreciated - defence due 7 Dec.

[ostell]

Re: CEL Coop Case now unstayed

Cel are criminally claiming a debt that does not belong to them. Good job you kept the letter.
If you were there without being a customer then the only claim is by the coop for trespass
Have CEL defined what they are claiming for. Their normal choice of three is not sufficient.
If before POFA then if the RK can show they were elsewhere then no claim or if later then if NTK does not comply then no keeper liability.

[westmeadhawk]

Re: CEL Coop Case now unstayed

£215 for damages for breach of contract was the original claim

The letter from the court says we must apply for a set aside, or stay with a new defence or claimant has permission to enter Judgement in default. It's arisen fromy court's own motion without a hearing.

Thank you for your speedy response ostell. What's POFA and NTK?

Do you happen to know I'd there's a cost to make this application with new defence?

[ostell]

Re: CEL Coop Case now unstayed

POFA = Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 Introduced the concept of Keeper liability, previously they could only claim from the driver.
NTK = Notice to Keeper The notice you get from them demanding money.

I don't know about the cost but there would be normally but if the judge ordered it then who knows.

Breach of contract before Beavis would mean that they had to show Genuine Preestimate of Loss, which you can still ask for, but Beavis changed it so that any charge has to be reasonable. £215 is not.

Ask them for an unredacted copy of their contract to see if they had the right to actually claim and take you to court.

The important bit would be that the debt has been assigned to Deal. They may be the same company under the cover but as the debt was assigned then CEL to not have the right to claim the full amount. You will find cases where this has been successful if you search around.

If it goes to court then CEL will, in all probability, not turn up and you then have ready your costs so that you claim your costs because of CEL's unreasonable behaviour.

[westmeadhawk]

Re: CEL Coop Case now unstayed

OK it was 2013 so after POFA

The NTK either was not received or has been destroyed, sadly. At any rate I no longer have it. I suppose I could ask CEL to prove that it was sent within 14 days and assert in the defence it was not which I believe to be true.

DEAL and CEL are linked in some way but I will submit that CEL are not entitled to claim the full amount based on their notice of assignment and ask for a copy of the contract.

Thank you

[des8]

Re: CEL Coop Case now unstayed

I don't know about the cost but there would be normally but if the judge ordered it then who knows.

.

£50............ but if you don't pay they win by default.

Daughter in same position re PE case.

[westmeadhawk]

Re: CEL Coop Case now unstayed

Thanks des8 £50 to file a defence - not surprised but disappointed. Add that to costs then...

[mystery1]

Re: CEL Coop Case now unstayed

Seem to have missed you first time around.

Can you post up the claim, defence, pcn, judges order etc (suitably sanitised) ?

M1

[westmeadhawk]

Re: CEL Coop Case now unstayed

Sorry for the delay, I had to get home to sort. This is what I have to hand - it's a hunt in the filing for anything else.

PCN has never been found - I was probably following the ignore protocol and got rid of it.

[mystery1]

Re: CEL Coop Case now unstayed

Sadly this order is a reflection of what is going to happen now. "Private parking ?" "You're fecked"

You do have a defence in the assignment and keeper liability but sadly you're going to have to make an application (which costs) in order to continue because some judge has heard of Beavis and has not read your defence.

I'm working all weekend so give me a shout on Monday and we'll sort out the defence etc.

M1

[westmeadhawk]

Re: CEL Coop Case now unstayed

Thank you, I will get in touch next week. I noted that the order requires a 'concise' defence. Annoying that failure to consider all the points made in the original defence led to striking the whole thing out. Oh well - I'll phone the court tomorrow and see how to get the application processed.

[westmeadhawk]

Re: CEL Coop Case now unstayed

Hi ostell

Court doesn't pick up the phone to answer my question! I'll keep trying - in the meantime should I expand my defence based on the assignment of most of the debt to DEAL? Is there any case law on this? Thank you

[ostell]

Re: CEL Coop Case now unstayed

Others will help with case law but yes, you need to add to your defence that the debt, at least the total sum, no longer belongs to CEL.

They are hoping that you have thrown away that letter of assignment.