Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


laluna88

CEL PCN Claimform - Tenerife Buildings, Station Road, South Gosforth, Newcastle NE3 1QD

Recommended Posts

You cant have a date to exchange witness statements if its not been allocated....

 

the defendant writes the ws..no-one else.

and it is not a fine...

 

 

 

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been allocated DX...

 

Quote

We've received a letter to the case has been allocated to the small claims track although haven't received a date for it yet. 

 

 

Date for the hearing....it will be issued separately  


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so now your local court will look at their diary and tell you that the case has been transferred to them and a date has been set sometime in the (probably distant) future. that court may well also use its case amnagement powers to order CEL to put up or shut up and possibly ask for details of your defence if it is a bit vague or you are going for a costs order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi all

 

Hope you dont mind me posting on here but my wife said you've been really helpful throughout the PCN issues and recommended me writing on here.

 

My wife has been dealing with this PCN throughout (shes like a dog with a bone) and has just told me the witness statement paperwork is due on Friday. She is pregnant and has been sick constantly over the last few weeks and has admitted that she hasn't done much work on the witness statement and is in a bit of a state about it. Granted this is my PCN as its in my name but she has been adamant that she wanted to fight it (i just wanted to pay it from day dot).

 

I dont want her stressing over this especially the state shes already in. I'm happy to do this witness statement especially seeing as its my court case so ive taken today off work to get it sorted. I'm well aware i'm out of the loop with it though and she's not been in any state to go through it all. 

 

From what I gather:

1. The signage doesn't offer a contract. Can someone explain how this is the case please? My understanding is that its about offer and acceptance but not sure in what sense?

2. She has evidence from the council that the signage doesn't have planning permission. This then means that anything written on the signs are null and void?

3. the sign says there will be £100 charge for breach but doesnt breakdown where an additional £167 odd will come from (is this a valid argument? Read on another thread someone won on these grounds)

4. All of this is chasing me as the keeper but i wasn't the driver

5. original NKT doesnt have a photograph of the car and as i wasnt the driver i did think this was spam mail (or shouldnt i mention that)

 

Qs

1. which of the signs are the worst? or both as bad as each other?

2. do i elaborate more on the fact that i definitely wasnt the driver? I can give dated emails etc from work for that day to prove it

 

Any help would be amazing right now. I'll keep reading these sites to do my own research, its quite fascinating when you get in to it! Happy to just pay this though if you think its the best course of action.

 

Cheers

lalunas husband.

Edited by laluna88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Your wife is damn right to want to fight these fleecers - kudos to her!  Hope the pregnancy goes well BTW.

 

CEL are one of the worst and most dishonest PPCs.  Their MO is to start court action (although they have no intention of carrying it through) in order to intimidate motorists in the hope that lots will be terrified of the idea of court and will cough up.  However, when a defendant files a decent WS they invariably discontinue the case and crawl back under their stone.  It's a disgraceful abuse of the court system but good news for you if you get the WS right.  Of course there's no guarantee they will give up, but that's how it generally goes.

 

I've had a hunt for a good WS in a CEL case, but haven't had much joy.  However, have a look at the WS in post 229  

 

Huge chunks of this will be inapplicable, but also huge chunks will be useful (especially the bit about them making up extra charges) so at least it's a start.

Edited by FTMDave
Typo
  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have till Friday, there is time for people who are experts in these cases to pop in and answer your questions, so you can fine tune your WS.

 

Regarding your point (2), yes, lack of planning permission is illegal (not unlawful) and therefore a contract can't be formed.  This is covered in point 21 of the WS above.  If you substitute your wife's evidence in that paragraph for that OP's evidence, that is one part covered.

 

Regarding (3), yes, these con artists make up additional charges that have no basis in law.  Covered by points 35-42 in above WS.

 

Yes, lay it on thick that you were not the driver on the day and so they are suing the wrong person.  Any evidence you have would be excellent.  You need to show why their pants paperwork doesn't establish keeper liability under the POFA.  There is some stuff about the POFA again in above WS but I don't know how much is applicable to you. 

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The points about the additional charges are addressed in that judgment discussed last week regarding the Unicorn feed tax being an unlawful Penalty

 

this thread, there is a link to the Hudgment well worth a read especially paras 50 on. it can be quoted in your WS to challenge the additional charges.

 

 

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, cheers @FTMDave and @brassnecked. Going through it all slowly, thanks. AnniesMum did some bloody good work!

 

My wife requested (under CPR 31.14) in writing, the contract between the landowner and CEL (Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of each of the following document(s) mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:

 

1.     The contract between Civil Enforcement LTD and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name.

 

They have only sent back the attached. Does this provide any ammo? Seems very simple.

 

Cheers both

 

contract.pdf

 

Also only mentions that it is permit holder only (insinuates the car was parked in a residents only area or something) whereas you can a. still park there for 20 mins 'free' and b. register with businesses to park there. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that site has no such 20mins restrictions!!

no-one can change what the council granted at the planning stage 

go look it up.

 

dx

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DX, that was my gut feeling also. However the planning portal doesn't give any information re. the original planning permission given to that site. I've been searching but can't seem to locate anything anywhere that says what the minimum duration's should be on a site. 

 

I've emailed the planning officer who originally told my wife that the signs didnt have permissions so hopefully he will come back with something. Thanks for the heads up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the signs have no PP

then that blows the whole claim out the water. Illegal advertising!!


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, first draft attached. I'm bloody knackered, it's tough. It still needs bits and bobs finshing mind.

 

Would someone be able to take a quick look at it please? I'm worried there are things in there that i've not realised don't apply to this case and i'll screw myself over with it.

 

One thing i haven't mentioned is that there are inconsistencies within the paperwork, one letter has another vehicle/issue mentioned in it and a few others have the date stamp as 00:00:00. Is this inconsistency worth mentioning?

 

Also feel like the keeper liability/POFA section isn't overly strong. Should i be concerned about this, ie i didnt admit who the driver was?

 

many TIA everyone.

witness statement.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi laluna - well done on your draft WS. I noticed on section 4 under Contracts you'd left in the company name VCS - just an oversight.

 

With some reluctance, I actually removed most of the section headed ANPR which you've included at the end of your WS,  on erics brother's advice, as he rightly said it was commentary and not directly relevant to our case. 

 

The WS that's posted in our thead is not actually the final version, as I tidied it up after that.

 

I did also post up the notes for cross examination (a blow by blow attack on the claimant's statement), which make additional important points, like the chain of authority from the landowner to the parking company, which I homed in on after submitting the WS, but were to be ammunition at the hearing.

 

See "Extra points on claimant's statement" on our thread above, in case there are any relevant points.

 

Good luck with your battle!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm knackered too but promise to have a proper look tomorrow, as I'm sure others will.

 

A few quick things.

 

In the first part you immediately point out that they are suing the wrong person, but then you have a second section SIGNAGE and then a third part on KEEPER LIABILITY/POFA.  It seems to me that the first & third parts are essentially the same, you should stick them together.  Make the paragraph "The only way the Claimant has a legal right to pursue the registered keeper is ..." paragraph 6 of the introduction.  

 

What time did the fleecers ticket your wife?  I'm just thinking they could claim you parked and then walked the short distance to work.  Make sure your evidence shows you were already at work at that time and couldn't have been the driver. 

 

In CONTRACT, para 4, you've left in "VCS" from ABM's WS.

 

The entire last section "GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION 2019/DATA PROTECTION" needs to go.  You're telling the court that the industry is a disgrace, which of course is true, but that's irrelevant to the facts of your case.

 

Have CEL sent you their WS yet?

 

All just IMO of course, others may disagree.

 

BTW, apologies if I seem hyper-critical.  It's just the nature of the beast that the dodgy bits get commented on, not the rest.  What you've prepared is superb overall.  Your wife will be proud of you.  As you should be of her for refusing to give in to the fleecers! 

Edited by FTMDave
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am bound to say that their alleged contract is probably the weirdest I have seen.

Considering it is supposed to be a serious legal contract to set out the conditions under which CEL manage the parking on land that does not belong to them it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

For a start it does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice which is

 

7.3

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

 

So no mention of hours:

no mention of types of vehicle restrictions:

no mention of who is responsible for the erection and maintenance of signage

 

and much more serious

-no mention that CEL have to comply with the BPA Code of conduct-that one is listed on 7.1. 

 

All it states is that the operator can pursue outstanding PCNs in accordance with the COP but that is not the same as saying that CEL will abide by the CoP which it must say.

 

Also AFAIK the only entity that can pursue for trespass is the land owner regardless of what this quasi agreement says.

There is also no mention of the financial aspect of the arrangement nor how the long it lasts and what notice is required for either side to terminate.  

 

It might be worth writing [not emailing ] to Medburn Estates asking them to confirm if this is the only agreement with CEL and whether they think it right that CEL have not received planning permission for their signs from the Council rendering their signs illegal which is more serious than unlawful and therefore all PCNs issued are worthless and should not have been issued as it is impossible to form a contract with motorists when the signs are illegal.

 

Also that as CEL are their agents Medburn Estates LTD are responsible for the actions of their agents.

You could also ask them to cofirm that the signature on the paper is that of their Director, Anthony Brown and whether their copy has a counter signature of a CEL representative.

 

Carry on that CEL are taking you to Court and as another Judge has asked a Landowner to appear in front of him to explain their contract, whether it might be in the best interest of Medway to have a serious conversation with CEL to avoid any possible  embarrassments in your  [ie Laluna] Court appearance.

 

I have not looked much at your WS though it is looking good.

 

I would have mentioned that as they failed to comply with

 Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

 

that they are in breach of their agreement CoP with BPA to keep to all the legal requirements in running their parking  operations.

 

It calls into question their right to apply for motorists data from the DVLA.

 

I would wait for their WS to arrive so that you can pick holes in that too.

however watch that if they are late that you send yours off just within the Court guidelines.

 

What you are tying to do with your WS is to put your side of the case plus put CEL in as bad a light as possible for them to  decide that they don't really want to go to Court after all.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A copy of the email  in appendix with link from planning saying no PP in place might also be beneficial, it of itself could be fatal to the claim.

 

also the additional costs the ones we call Unicorn Food tax, as in only apply to driver, not keeper might be worth quoting from OPS v Ms W lewes CC para's 65 -68n  regarding these additions being an unfair term, so cannot apply to keeper as was not there etc.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone, appreciate your feedback and encouragement. Definitely feeling more confident in this whole thing compared to this time yesterday. 
 

@anniebattlemum thank you and thanks for the heads up on your additional notes. I must admit that i stopped reading the page once i'd seen they had given in. your work is brilliant so thank you so much as it has been a huge help. Will go over the rest of those notes now.

 @FTMDave not overly critical at all, keep it coming please! All noted so far and have updated WS.
They fleeced her between 3:43 & 16:25. Unfortunately I only have emails from around during the day then 4:15/4:20. got evidence of where i request a parking space if i ever have the car. Defo didnt have the car there that day so no space request so hopefully will help? Also have messages between my family where i confirm where to meet them (in Newcastle CC) during the day and CC statements proving i purchased things. Granted theyre not time stamped but is better than presenting nothing im hoping? clutching at straws haha

 

CEL havent sent their WS yet no which is frustrating. How bad is it if mine is late to them? I would prefer to send them a paper copy (the court wants me to email theirs) so have loads of time but conscious that posting it is defo going to be late.

 

@lookinforinfo cheers for the meaty reply. definitely think that contacting medburn is a great idea but out of time to do it in a letter for the WS (its due at 4pm tomorrow frustratingly) think ill send one anyway but not to include. ill still include some of the things youve written though as if my wife requested the contract, surely they should have sent the proper one if they have one and not just this piece of paper?

 

Thanks for the reminder @brassnecked completely forgot to include any of that yesterday. will read  up more and include now.

 

thanks again for your time and effort with this. Vive la résistance!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry I didn't realise your WS was due so soon.

But yes do add the comments about the "contract" which does not comply with thr BPA Code of Practice etc etc.

as that piece of paper has not been signed by both parties then there can be no contract between CEL and the motorist.

 

you may have to allude to OPS v Ms W where Judge Harvey lays down what a proper contract should be for the benefit of your Judge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That addition of the contract bit from the OPS case is persuasive as is the part about the Unicorn Feed tax.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when talking about liability make sure that you point out in the strongest terms that CEL's NTK is NOT POFA compliant and even fails to create ANY liability by their failure to use the key phrases of the POFA to create a liability.

 

Quote their NTK and show why it is cobblers with reference to the para of the Act you rely on.

 

I know you have this a point 12 but move it up to sit with the relevant points rather than being isolated.

context is important, your WS is telling a story as well as reeling out facts.

 

Point 8,

the additional costs are only applicable to the driver and where a keeper liability is created under the POFA only the original sum on the NTK is enforceable.

 

Courts ( Southampton and Lewes plus others) have decided that the extra additional charges are indeed extravagant as they represent more than XX% of the actual contractual charge. This invites you judge to use their formula rather than work in isolation. they will thank you for that, they like "persuasive" cases to refer to.

 

ppints 14-16. Dont tell the court its business, this looks like commentary rather than your WS so reword it and shorten these points and drop the bit about what parliament is minded to do at some point in the future, you are dealing with a problem with the law as it is.

 

So get all of your supporting docs and images together and you will be good to go.

Do not rely on their pictures of signs, CEL are happy to use a computer to change the reality to fit in with thier claims of that particular day and use stock images when they cant lie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All taken on board and amending, thanks. 

 

Can i 100% check that this NTK is non-compliant?

It defo is in terms of it being issued to the keeper and nothing came for me before this,

but it does mention me having to give them info as to who it was within 28 days etc etc.

Think this POFA and keeper liability bit is what I’m most worried about. 

 

 

PCN.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to give them any info as to who was the driver, that would be a very bad idea, as it then removes any protection from {POFA.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre-final draft of my WS. Any fresh eyes would be great as ive been on this for the last 7 hours now and I cant see for looking anymore.  massively sorry if ive missed anything, your help, advice and guidance has been invaluable.

 

*** Still unsure about my point 6 and POFA and how its failing to create keeper liability as NTK a. mentions POFA, it states the 28 days. Help!  The only thing i'm sure of is that i defo didnt receive a notice to driver as per POFA. Any specifics that i can actually quote would be brilliant right now.

 

Will be sending off tomorrow. Still nervous about the fact that i need to post this to CEL and will therefore be late. Will this matter? i can also email a copy to a random mediate email address they put on some correspondence in the meantime. Still havent received theirs neither FYI. 

 

cheers people

LLH

witness statement.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best not use any email, they can then send stuff at 12:59:59 pm the day before a hearing and say you had it unless you have something in writing saying they must not use that email for service of any or all documents.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm proof reading this and finding holes in my argument all over the place. Not feeling confident at all and Im conscious of time as i need to finalise all of the appendices etc before i can send.  Had to heavily amend point 13, as the signage does mention 'additional charges' so i cant really use that. along with a few others bits too. 

 

@FTMDave

@ericsbrother

@brassnecked

@lookinforinfo

 

Is there anything specific and concrete that you can shed light on that i can quickly include? You previously mention that the NTK doesn't create any liability, how? I've attached the signage again along with the original NTK. 

Tenerife_Buildings_PCN_-_Newcastle.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...