Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'

[badrav]

@b789 got this from previous post, sorry didn't know about the forum

If you could please advise

https://ibb.co/KpRVFDK9
https://ibb.co/TDYN3PFY
https://ibb.co/WNjnC3gC
https://ibb.co/r2wP7wKx
https://ibb.co/bj7pFKDC
https://ibb.co/8DCv8bjb
https://ibb.co/pm541BB
https://ibb.co/vGLVGzD
https://ibb.co/8Sb31qH

---

@b789 got this from previous post, sorry didn't know about the forum

If you could please advise

https://ibb.co/KpRVFDK9
https://ibb.co/TDYN3PFY
https://ibb.co/WNjnC3gC
https://ibb.co/r2wP7wKx
https://ibb.co/bj7pFKDC
https://ibb.co/8DCv8bjb
https://ibb.co/pm541BB
https://ibb.co/vGLVGzD
https://ibb.co/8Sb31qH

Previous correspondence

https://ibb.co/KpRVFDK9
https://ibb.co/TDYN3PFY
https://ibb.co/WNjnC3gC
https://ibb.co/r2wP7wKx
https://ibb.co/bj7pFKDC
https://ibb.co/8DCv8bjb
https://ibb.co/pm541BB
https://ibb.co/vGLVGzD
https://ibb.co/8Sb31qH

To which replied

BPA’s Deliberate Misapplication of PoFA Delivery Presumption

Dear Ms Staunton,

Your dismissal of the rebuttal to the statutory presumption of service is precisely the reason PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 exists in the first place.

You know full well that under PoFA Schedule 4, the “second working day” presumption in 9(6) only applies if the parking operator can prove the date of posting. That statutory safeguard exists to prevent operators from simply claiming a convenient delivery date without evidence. The PPSCoP Note reflects this in mandatory language:

“Parking operators MUST retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated.”

This is not an optional “best practice” nicety. It is the only practical means by which PoFA compliance on delivery timing can be evidenced.

By refusing to require Civil Enforcement Ltd to produce posting records — and by instead fabricating a “presumed delivery” date that either precedes the issue date by over two months (20 July 2024) or, if corrected to 7 October 2024, is still wrong in law — you have:

• Destroyed the evidential basis for the presumption;
• Enabled an operator to rely on PoFA without satisfying its statutory preconditions;
• Acted contrary to the PPSCoP’s stated purpose of upholding statutory compliance; and
• Demonstrated why public confidence in the BPA’s impartiality is non-existent.

The very fact that you dismiss the rebuttal of presumption is itself proof of the BPA’s regulatory failure. If you genuinely believed in upholding PoFA, you would treat posting evidence as non-negotiable — as the PPSCoP Note requires — rather than dismissing it to shield a member from scrutiny.

This correspondence, along with your stated position, will be provided to the DVLA, the MHCLG minister, and the ICO as evidence of systemic bias and failure to enforce statutory safeguards.

Your next reply should confirm either that:

(a) The operator has provided actual posting records for the NtK; or
(b) You accept that PoFA keeper liability cannot apply in the absence of such records.

Anything less will be taken as further confirmation of the BPA’s unwillingness to regulate its members in accordance with statute.

Yours sincerely

Can link to the other forum if allowed

[b789]

Hi @badrav. Yes, you can link to the thread in FTLA. It will save me time not having to search for it.

In the meantime, I’ll look through the links you have posted and get back to you here.

[b789]

Of all the documents you've linked to, this is the only one that matters:



Have you submitted your defence yet? You can use the MCOL deadline calculator I created to check the deadlines here: MCOL Deadline Calculator.

You had until 4pm on Monday 02 February to submit your defence or, if you submitted an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS), you have until 4pm on Monday 16th February.

It is getting close to the deadline if you did submit an AoS, so let me know and I can give you a suitable defence you can submit.

[b789]

@badrav, I found your FTLA thread here: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'. The most urgent matter right now is whether you submitted an AoS or a defence.

[badrav]

Of all the documents you've linked to, this is the only one that matters:



Have you submitted your defence yet? You can use the MCOL deadline calculator I created to check the deadlines here: MCOL Deadline Calculator.

You had until 4pm on Monday 02 February to submit your defence or, if you submitted an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS), you have until 4pm on Monday 16th February.

It is getting close to the deadline if you did submit an AoS, so let me know and I can give you a suitable defence you can submit.

[badrav]

Of all the documents you've linked to, this is the only one that matters:

Have you submitted your defence yet? You can use the MCOL deadline calculator I created to check the deadlines here: MCOL Deadline Calculator.
You had until 4pm on Monday 02 February to submit your defence or, if you submitted an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS), you have until 4pm on Monday 16th February.
It is getting close to the deadline if you did submit an AoS, so let me know and I can give you a suitable defence you can submit.

[b789]

@badrav , You don't have to include all the previous responses when you reply. It is quite difficult to see what you are actually asking

I need to clarify a few thinsg first. Have you responded at all to the Claim you have received? You can check the deadlines you had by using this MCOL Calculator I have created here:

MCOL Deadline Calculator

If you have not responded yet, it is highly likely that you will have a CCJ by default. If you have submitted an AoS, you have until 4pm today to submit a defence. Please let em know ASAP where you are at with this.

[badrav]

@badrav , You don't have to include all the previous responses when you reply. It is quite difficult to see what you are actually asking

I need to clarify a few thinsg first. Have you responded at all to the Claim you have received? You can check the deadlines you had by using this MCOL Calculator I have created here:

MCOL Deadline Calculator

If you have not responded yet, it is highly likely that you will have a CCJ by default. If you have submitted an AoS, you have until 4pm today to submit a defence. Please let em know ASAP where you are at with this.

Sorry it comes up with the reply automatically. I havent submitted it

---

This came through yesterday, so I think im screwed?

https://ibb.co/CpsQtVFH
https://ibb.co/4gpPJZtg

[b789]

You had until 4pm yesterday to submit a defence. If you have not submitted anything, you are at serious risk of getting a CCJ by default.

If it is not too late, I advise you to read the following immediately. This needs to be done now, not later.

Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.


You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit. 

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.

AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).

ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.

[badrav]

Ive tried to submit the response online but keeps saying the 

Claim number or password incorrect

Ive checked it multiple times but keep getting the same. I registered as an individual

Is there any other way to rest password file the defence?

---

Password had a I which looked like an L

It says a judgement has been entered against you. You cannot respond to the claim at this time but you may apply for the judgement to be set aside

Have I got any options?‍ @b789