The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

[Stravinskykof]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

I'm afraid without an application this is where we are. It is common amongst these scumbags to present a terrible claim. Some get struck out and some don't. All you can do is await their evidence and respond quickly to that.

M1

From what you know of this so far with their total lack of communication, is it possible I may be stuck with costs if they present something on the day and I have no possibility to defend it?

[mystery1]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

Yes, but they are not allowed to do so. After allocation the court will issue a timetable which will include a deadline for filing evidence. The evidence should complement the pleadings however many get away with using a witness statement to replace the pleadings. At this stage you should immediately counter it the best we can.

If they pitch up on the day with no forewarning and the judge lets them away with it then you'll just need to appeal, and it should be a rubber stamp on appeal for you.

CEL are not habitual turner uppers nor do they usually not file evidence when they are supposed to.

M1

[R0b]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

To add, if they rock up with new evidence on the day then you can object to the judge and say that they should have filed this evidence at the time as required by the Court. In presenting it on the day you have been ambushed with no opportunity to review the evidence and consider your position. Therefore the evidence should not be accepted.

IF the judge allows it then you should potentially seek an adjournment which gives you a bit of breathing space, otherwise you continue to proceed with trial.

[Stravinskykof]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

On reading through the N180 form, one of the questions is "do you agree to this case being referrred to the small claims mediation service." In the small print it says that if both parties agree to mediation my details will be passed to the small claims mediation team who will contact me to make an appointment. I believe its carried out by telephone by appointment. I wouldnt be required to settle, so if we were unable to come to an agreement it would go back to the court system (which I assume CEL would prefer to avoid).

If I took this route it of course alleviates the risk of court costs. I'm still unaware though what the claim figure is now ... the original "fine" or the fine plus CEL costs & interest.

Is this a route I should take do you think, bearing in mind to this day I still have no idea what I am fighting against due to CEL's lack of communication. I guess as mentioned above if they do agree to mediate and I discover the "fine" is incorrect or they have no evidence to back it up then I can just go back to the court system instead.

Theres also the matter of the £255 cost I incurred to overturn the CCJ that I never received documents for which seems more and more unlikely to be returned now :-)

Thanks again for your help so far

[mystery1]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

On reading through the N180 form, one of the questions is "do you agree to this case being referrred to the small claims mediation service." In the small print it says that if both parties agree to mediation my details will be passed to the small claims mediation team who will contact me to make an appointment. I believe its carried out by telephone by appointment. I wouldnt be required to settle, so if we were unable to come to an agreement it would go back to the court system (which I assume CEL would prefer to avoid).

Correct.

If I took this route it of course alleviates the risk of court costs. I'm still unaware though what the claim figure is now ... the original "fine" or the fine plus CEL costs & interest.

The £50 solicitors costs, you argue to get that chucked out. Costs in the small claims track are limited. CPR 27.14 and practice direction 27 have the details.

Interest continues to accrue but many judges are cutting the 8% due to the long period of low interest. I've seen a few random court cases where 4% was used.

Is this a route I should take do you think, bearing in mind to this day I still have no idea what I am fighting against due to CEL's lack of communication. I guess as mentioned above if they do agree to mediate and I discover the "fine" is incorrect or they have no evidence to back it up then I can just go back to the court system instead.

I always suggest it. Even if you are dead set against paying anything it makes you appear more reasonable as the details are not given to the court. There is also a chance for those who are willing to pay something just to get it off their back to do so.

Theres also the matter of the £255 cost I incurred to overturn the CCJ that I never received documents for which seems more and more unlikely to be returned now :-)

You must remember to ask for that if you win or could use it at mediation, if for example you wanted to," I'll swallow my costs so far including the £255 set aside, if you drop it." (that's for you to decide)

M1

[Stravinskykof]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

Correct.

The £50 solicitors costs, you argue to get that chucked out. Costs in the small claims track are limited. CPR 27.14 and practice direction 27 have the details.

Interest continues to accrue but many judges are cutting the 8% due to the long period of low interest. I've seen a few random court cases where 4% was used.



I always suggest it. Even if you are dead set against paying anything it makes you appear more reasonable as the details are not given to the court. There is also a chance for those who are willing to pay something just to get it off their back to do so.



You must remember to ask for that if you win or could use it at mediation, if for example you wanted to," I'll swallow my costs so far including the £255 set aside, if you drop it." (that's for you to decide)

M1

To be honest your last suggestion there is what I almost feel like as I dont have confidence in this system going forwards.

As an aside after reading a thread you previously commented on with the member imf, I did some googling of leisure facilities / CEF to see if I might narrow down where this parking offence could have happened. I finally came across some angry people who were complaining about a car park that had Easy Gym and homebase in it in Birmingham. Turns out CEL run it. There are comical happy style cartoon like warning signs for an hours free parking, and an entrance / exit camera. I went down there this morning and the manager of Homebase says they are having loads of problems with CEL and are trying to get the landlord to get rid of them. The word scammers was used. He has regular visits from people in the same situation as me. When I lived in that area I used to use Homebase, and I was a member of Easy Gym (where you have to type your reg number into a key pad). If this is what is is, then I could produce proof of EasyGym membership quite easily and as a member I was allowed to stay there as long as I wanted to. I realise its all hypothetical until I have details from CEL, but if it were the case then I would maybe risk going to court.

As it is, I'll apply for mediation as advised, and see what happens. There is no room on the form to ask again for details of the claim before mediation starts, but I will attach a separate request.

Thanks again

[Stravinskykof]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

Im not sure if this is correct or not, but Ive just been advised that CEL cant have a case against the keeper of the car and that I dont have to give the driver of the cars details up? Three people have access to my car. If and when I get the details of date, surely this could completely throw their case out if true?

[mystery1]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

It would usually be the case that the PCN is not capable of compliance with the protection of freedoms act .

An example





They may try to argue Elliot v Loake which is incorrect.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...ladstoned.html

Also an account of a case from yesterday where a judge, who had previously decided another forum user was liable, said it was pish. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...&postcount=125

M1

[Stravinskykof]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

It would usually be the case that the PCN is not capable of compliance with the protection of freedoms act .

Also an account of a case from yesterday where a judge, who had previously decided another forum user was liable, said it was pish. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...&postcount=125

M1

Thanks

Ive been reading from peoples experiences and the mediation team seems to be very much into persuading / bullying you in to settling.
Trouble is I still have nothing to go on and I'm guessing that the mediation will be a case of them trying to make me pay and me refusing because I dont know what to pay.

Maybe CEL will miraculously come up with a photograph, but even now I dont know if I was driving or if I exceeded any time limits so how can I mediate!

Suggestions that I should appeal using POPLA but I dont have a ticket to appeakl and POPLA have ajourned all their cases anyway

[mystery1]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

If they don't tell you at mediation what they want then mediation is going to be short. Still it *might* extract some info.

They could issue a popla code if they wanted to but they won't.

M1

[Stravinskykof]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

R0b & mystery1, thank you both again for all the help. I'm still constantly researching and coming up with new takes on this.

I've submitted my defence a while ago now, and more recently submitted the N180 proposed allocation in the small claims track. That didnt need to be in until 28 November.

It seems that a defence in many cases has relied on POFA compliance, and it seems CEL dont comply with this in their ticket issue.

A suggestion is that I chould have put in a copy of the POPLA report pages 12 & 13 that specifically refer to keeper liability. Thats to say that the liability for a parking notice is upon the person who last caused the vehicle to be at rest, rather than the actual keeper. Also a copy of POPLA schedule 4 to go in, both as exhibits. There is no liability on the keeper to disclose who the driver of the car was at the time.

Do you think I should do this, and I supposed even the question is CAN I do it after the date for the defence has passed? Heres the POPLA detail:

Keeper liabilityThe person who may be liable for a charge arising out of the presence of avehicle on private land is the person who last caused the vehicle to be at rest inthat position, that is the ‘driver’, although he or she may no longer be physically inthe vehicle when a parking charge notice is issued to it, or the event is recorded.The only presumption that anyone else is liable for such a charge is underSchedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This provides that, in certainprescribed circumstances, the creditor (in practice the operator) has the rightto recover any unpaid parking charge from the keeper of the vehicle. There isseparate provision for hirers of vehicles, although Assessors find that such casesrarely come before them.The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) may provide details ofregistered keepers for what they term ‘reasonable cause’. They state that this caninclude such things as finding out who was responsible for an accident or tracingpeople responsible for driving off without paying for goods and services, as well astracing the owner of an abandoned vehicle.However, the DVLA say that private car parking management companies canonly request information from them if they are members of the British ParkingAssociation or the Independent Parking Committee. If an operator is a memberof the BPA Approved Operator Scheme, they should only act in accordance withthe BPA Code of Practice.Nevertheless, there appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recoveryof unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. Whether or not the keeper is the owner is not relevant. Unlike the statutory schemes, under Schedule4 there is no concept of ‘owner liability’. The word ‘keeper’ means the person bywhom the vehicle is kept at the material time, which, in the case of a registeredvehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the person inwhose name the vehicle is registered, that is the registered keeper. Presumption isjust that, it is something that can be rebutted and may be an issue for the Assessorto determine.The release of keeper details by the DVLA may be another matter of publiccontroversy and even legal action. The matter has recently been the subjectof a case in the High Court4 involving the Secretary of State for Transport, onwhose behalf the DVLA holds the keeper records. In that case, the claimantsubmitted that he should not be subject to a requirement to join an accreditedtrade association (ATA) if he wished to be able to access large amounts of datafrom the register, in order that he could recover sums of money from the keepersor drivers of vehicles which have trespassed on his clients’ land. The Secretaryof State took a different view and the Court found that the decision was notirrational and that there was no arguable basis for quashing it.However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ inlaw that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should neversuggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issuedunder Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipienthas accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example,a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle mustbe supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the RoadTraffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation toname the driver. Any evidence in this regard may therefore be highly relevant.

[mystery1]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

Strictly speaking the rules for amending a statement of case are

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part17

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...rt17/pd_part17


So the answer is not really. However, it's not as simple as that. The statement of case from the claimant http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...019#post685019 #3 attachment is wholly inadequate. If they do not get to amend they simply cannot win. They may not amend and the court may allow them to make a case via witness statement, totally against the rules, but that means the court would face serious difficulties in ruling against you replying in kind.

So, in short, don't send it yet but do keep studying for if/when the time comes that there is a case which needs answered.


The N180 gets sent to both.

M1

[Stravinskykof]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

Good afternoon, and a Happy New Year to you

Well ...... it's taken some time but I have now received a notice from the court advising a hearing date of 28 February

It states a hearing fee is payable by the claimant otherwise the case will be taken off the list. What does that actually mean ..... if CEL doesn't bother then where does that leave me?

I'm encouraged to settle, but of course CEL dont answer my lettters or emails so thats impossible, but I guess I have to show I have tried again. I have a list of things I have been told to do, although of course I already lodged my statements before. Is this a point where I should say I was not driving the car? I have no sight of any photographs of the car / reg plate so still have no idea what the evidence is.

I'm not calling any witnesses, so basically it will presumably just be my previous witness statements

I've attached copies of what I have received and again would be very grateful for your input

I have to read through everything that has gone before to refresh my memory ... the thought of standing infront of judge for 90 minutes arguing with a legally savvy member of CEL fills me with dread to be honest!

[mystery1]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

So the only particulars of claim we have are http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...8&d=1477056090

Can you post/repost the defence you sent ?

You are your only witness.

M1

[Stravinskykof]

Re: The Dreaded Civil Enforcement Ltd

Strange that they have gone

Heres the defence and the particulars of claim I have
I still have no communication from CEL, no idea of what the claim is for, or the time it happened (although I do have the day)