CEL ANPR PCN Claimform - Overstay - Portwood Court in Stockport ***Claim Discontinued***

[Mrs O'Frog]

I didn't say "prove" keeper liability did I? CREATE - please read CAREFULLY and understand - what do you think POFA fails means? You start guessing and paraphrasing then you'll wind up talking out of your rusty sheriff's badge on the day. The judge will only humour you for so long (if they're in a good mood) if you're misquoting and making arguments that lead nowhere, before dismissing your waffle and asking if you have any relevant points.

 

Here's some homework for tomorrow: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

 

I'll be asking questions later and you'll get detention if you don't know your stuff!

 

 

[nssimpson]

Haha, crikey that's not exactly an easy read!!! So they have a right to create keeper liability (even if the keeper wasn't driving) only if they follow strict rules, which they haven't done. So as long as I don't state that I was the driver I should be okay? Am I understanding is point correctly?

[brassnecked]

Yup by appealing you can remove POFA protection often without realising.

[nssimpson]

I don't think that's my only protection but if it were and I went to court wouldn't the judge simply ask and it would be game over even if you refused to confirm/deny?

[Mrs O'Frog]

and thankfully your appeal was general enough that it didn't out you as the driver - but all those attempted phone calls could have been disastrous if they had answered!

 

It's your vehicle, but "the driver parked", "the driver did" (or didn't) "do x,y,z". Never "I was delayed in the shop" or "I didn't see the sign".

[Mrs O'Frog]

Read post 23 again. No, it's not your only bullet in the gun, but it's a good one. You get all the other spare ammo lined up as "In the alternative..."s.

 

In their POC they don't even say in what capacity they are suing you - as driver or as keeper? You have received the claim as registered keeper yet they have not complied with POFA 2012 in order to create keeper liability. They have established no cause for action against you and therefore have accessed your details from DVLA in breach of GDPR (but that bit's for another day).

 

The judge could ask you if you were driving, but is only likely to do so if you come across as vague and a bit dodgy. Like the guy who says "my wife is insured to drive too and they can't prove which one of us it was". That'll wind the judge up and even though it's not up to them to do CEL's job they may well ask in a case like that. You're not going to be vague, you'll be stating that you have received the claim as registered keeper, but as they have failed to comply with POFA 2012 there can be no keeper liability. You may need to explain the requirements of POFA 2012 to the judge and point out CEL's failures and the fact that "nearly" is not good enough - but all of that will be in your ws and in court.

 

 

[nssimpson]

I'm dreading going to court tbh.

 

I imagine making those repeated phone attempts will now help my case because they didn't pick up. The judge might think that CEL hasn't provided a satisfactory out of court resolution procedure. I thought of even asking the judge to try calling CEL right there and then to highlight the problem but maybe that's more tv drama than real life court. Also knowing my luck someone would pick up.

Edited August 29, 2019 by nssimpson

[dx100uk]

urm..this is cel they 99% of the time run away.

 

go read the numerous CEL PCN claimform threads already here on CAG.

 

part of CAG is self help.

the more RELEVENT stuff you read the better.

we cant and shouldn't be nurse maiding you.

 

 

[Mrs O'Frog]

Have you found anything about the "unicorn food tax" yet as EB likes to call it? That's the magical sums that CEL add to their claims. Now what gives them the right in law to add these sums and according to POFA what is the maximum amount they can claim from the REGISTERED KEEPER?

 

They don't like to stand up in front of a judge and admit that they were trying to claim for things they're not allowed to, so as dx says, CEL usually run away and hide once it looks like you're prepared to stand up to them. That's why the snotty letter at the LBC would have been the best option, but we can't turn the clock back now.

 

Oh - and just forget about the phone calls. Irrelevant twaddle. Where is the law that says their debt collectors must answer the telephone?

Edited August 29, 2019 by Mrs O'Frog

[nssimpson]

Hi Both, let's hope they don't turn up.

 

To be honest, if they had answered I would have hung up.

I just rang to see what would happen and was amazed that they didn't have a human I could talk to as their website stated.

 

When I got the letter from ZZPS the only option it gave me was to call a number "immediately to discuss payment" and to "avoid further action".

 

However, I tried twice and left it ringing for 10 minutes each time before hanging up.

If someone had answered I would have hung up but since they didn't I thought it's worth mentioning to the judge if it gets that far.

[dx100uk]

phone calls or their existence or not or trying or not...are inadmissible evidence in court anyway.

 

[nssimpson]

I have kept recordings of my attempts but maybe I should just pass comment on this to the judge to show the type of company CEL is and how they actively avoid talking to their victims.

 

I might actually post my defence tonight and get it over and done with. Unless waiting the extra day will make a difference.

 

Does CEL now need to pay more money to progress the court action further? I'm wondering if they will pay the full sum and still not bother turning up.

[dx100uk]

no!! forget them.

 

once you file your defence

they have 28 days to do 'something'  else claim is autostayed.

THEN it would cost them more to lift the say yes.

 

if they do file DQ in time, and it gets to allocation

then there is a further fee to pay yes.

 

plenty of threads here to read...

the one directly below yours has the complete court process listed today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mrs O'Frog]

9 hours ago, Mrs O'Frog said:

Oh - and just forget about the phone calls. Irrelevant twaddle.

I say again

[nssimpson]

I really appreciate all the help and I think you've now got through my thick skull

 

I'm working from home today so I can see if anything comes through the post today regarding my CPR request (postman usually arrives before lunch). Assuming I get nothing then is this defence now okay...

 

I (NAME) am the defendant in this matter and at the time of the alleged violation was the registered keeper of vehicle CAR REG. The claimant has failed to prove keeper liability and I deny any liability for the entirety of the claim.

 

The claimant has ignored the defendant's CPR request. They have failed to produce a contract with the landowner that assigns them the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name, so the defendant does not believe that the claimant has locus standi in this matter.

 

The defendant also believes that no planning consent was obtained for the current signage installed in 2018 as required under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. This means the signage is there illegally and it is not possible to enter into a criminal compact.

 

In any case there was no contract between the claimant and the defendant so no cause for action.

 

I took out the waffle about the signage being installed under 10 years ago and instead have written a sentence that gives a nod to the fact that the signage was changed in 2018. Hoping it might make CEL reconsider taking the matter further. Keep in or should I keep it in reserve?

 

Cheers

[nssimpson]

Postman been. Nothing from CEL. So is the above a suitable defence to now fire off? 

[nssimpson]

dx100uk, just reading back through this thread you suggested using the word violation so I'll alter the first paragraph to:

 

I (NAME) am the defendant in this matter and at the time of the alleged violation was the registered keeper of vehicle CAR REG. The claimant has failed to prove keeper liability and I deny any liability for the entirety of the claim.

 

I'll grabbing lunch then I'll go back onto the county court system and get this defence sent. I'll make sure to let everyone here know what CEL does next.

[nssimpson]

I'm just at the point of submitting the claim but wondered if the the word "compact" is correct or should that say "contract"?

[FTMDave]

It is "compact".  In another thread I thought it was a mistake but the regulars pointed out the proper legal definition of "compact".  

[dx100uk]

it is correct

[nssimpson]

Haha, thank you both. Just found the same thing out by searching this site for other threads that questioned it.

 

Logging back on now to submit. Then sit back and "relax"...

[nssimpson]

dx100uk - I decided to remove any mention of the date of the signage being installed (that was your initial advice). If it goes to court they might then not be prepared for that bombshell.

[Mrs O'Frog]

I've been away, just got back to a computer and see "prove" has wormed its way back into your defence. Well it's gone now, so nothing to do other than sit back and wait.

[nssimpson]

Ah, balls! Hope it's not messed up my defense too much.

[Mrs O'Frog]

No, but you've just given CEL a sign of hope. If they think you're a muppet they might just press ahead. Better start working on your WS - it'll be months away, but you'll need to learn your lines.