Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Peperlini
    • By Peperlini 27th Jun 17, 5:12 PM
    • 22Posts
    • 6Thanks
    Peperlini
    Civil Enforcement (CEL) Defence - Help please
    • #1
    • 27th Jun 17, 5:12 PM
    Civil Enforcement (CEL) Defence - Help please 27th Jun 17 at 5:12 PM
    I have read tonnes of threads drafting CEL Defence and have to say you guys are amazing, this resource has been invaluable to me!


    To give you a bit of background.
    I tried to pay by phone for my parking but the payment would not go through. With no option to pay by cash I decided to leave the car park (after approx. 15 mins).


    27 days later I received 'PCN' invoice from Civil Enforcement £100
    I wrote to them to appeal on grounds that the automated telephone system failed and the 'PCN' or notice to keeper exceeded the 14 days.
    I never received a response to this letter nor a POPLA code to appeal further
    3 months later I got the standard hassling letters from ZZPS followed by Letters from Wright Hassle (no pun intended there I'm sure) I ignored these letters.
    14th June I received County Court Claim signed by Claimants Legal representative (no signature) and a day or two later some additional particulars of claim signed by the infamous Mr Cohen. I did not receive a LBA or LBCCC


    ...so I have taken a stab at my defence, lifting all the relevant parts from other CEL defence threads that I could find, but before I email the signed pdf to the county court email address I was hoping you guys could take a look and give me any feedback.


    I hope I am posting this correctly, this is the first time I have ever used a forum so please forgive me if this is too long for one post.




    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number XXX Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant) v XXX (Defendant)






    Defence Statement




    I am XXX, the Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle XXX. I currently reside at XXX.


    I deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds, any of which are fatal to the Claimant’s case:
    1. The Claim Form issued on the 12th June 2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by “Civil Enforcement Limited” as the Claimant’s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.



    a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.


    b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.


    c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.


    d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. Furthermore, the due date of the purported £249.81 sum is listed as due on 15th September 2016, but the alleged debt did not exist on that date as the PCN was not issued until 12th October 2017 (exceeding the 14 day limit) and was for £100.No sum could have been outstanding on the date stated in the Particulars of Claim that are therefore untrue


    e) The additional particulars of claim are signed purportedly by Ashley Cohen, Mr Cohen was reported to sign off witness statements under London Councils POPLA on behalf of landowners, for CEL POPLA cases falsely stating authority. It is submitted that he is a director of another company, Bemrose Mobile Limited which supplies the pay by phone payment methods for parking. Mr Cohen was a former director of Creative Contracts Ltd but has since resigned. Mr Cohen is therefore put to strict proof the capacity and authority he has in signing such statements.


    f) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.


    g) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
    (i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
    (ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    (iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    (iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
    (v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    (vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    (vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed



    h) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.


    3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA 2012”). Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the parking event and when the notice was served, did not fully comply with statutory wording. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions:


    The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity at any point to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice entitled “Parking Charge Notice” which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.


    Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert, stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. ”Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and ‘relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £324.81 for outstanding debt and damages.


    4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee, Ashley Cohen, who drew up the paperwork is remunerated by Civil Enforcement Ltd and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original £100 parking notice to £249.81 If the claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the claimant's business plan.

    5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.


    6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.



    a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.


    b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.


    c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    (ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (iii) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.



    d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.


    7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.


    8. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.



    9. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    10.
    Claimants failure to process the payment is not the responsibility of the defendant, and no parking charge can be due. Driver made a telephone call to 0141 404 0000 at 12.24 pm on the 15th September 2016 to make payment. The call was automated and the driver followed all of the instructions. Evidence of this outgoing call was supplied to Civil Enforcement Ltd on 18th October 2016. This was a technical failure outside of the drivers control and therefore the driver discharges their duty to pay the sum necessary.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:



    a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 12th June 2017.


    b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.


    c) failed to issue a compliant notice to keeper within 14 days under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 such that Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.


    d) failed to respond to letter from the Defendant dated 18th October 2016 to address the technological failure of the automated payment system.


    e) failed to provide a POPLA code so that the matter could be referred for their decision (in accordance with BPA AOS Code of Practice 22.12)

    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


    Signed XXX
    Date XXX
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 27th Jun 17, 5:19 PM
    • 7,432 Posts
    • 6,482 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 27th Jun 17, 5:19 PM
    • #2
    • 27th Jun 17, 5:19 PM
    From what you have told us, it would be insane for CEL to take this to court, surely they are already in enough trouble as it is.


    Have you threatened a counter claim or a claim for unreasonable behaviour costs?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Peperlini
    • By Peperlini 27th Jun 17, 5:25 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Peperlini
    • #3
    • 27th Jun 17, 5:25 PM
    • #3
    • 27th Jun 17, 5:25 PM
    I was tempted to counter claim but I was worried about kicking the hornets nest.. and I have been losing some sleep over this. I know I am in the right but they are such bullies that whilst I know I should stand up to bullies I kind of want all this to just go away now.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Jun 17, 5:57 PM
    • 51,855 Posts
    • 65,491 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 27th Jun 17, 5:57 PM
    • #4
    • 27th Jun 17, 5:57 PM
    Yep that should get it stayed and see an end to it!

    Just saw a typo in the year:

    the PCN was not issued until 12th October 2017
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 29-06-2017 at 1:02 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Peperlini
    • By Peperlini 27th Jun 17, 5:59 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Peperlini
    • #5
    • 27th Jun 17, 5:59 PM
    • #5
    • 27th Jun 17, 5:59 PM
    Great catch on the date Coupon-mad. Thanks so much!
    • Peperlini
    • By Peperlini 27th Jun 17, 6:05 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Peperlini
    • #6
    • 27th Jun 17, 6:05 PM
    • #6
    • 27th Jun 17, 6:05 PM
    One last question: so if I email a scanned signed PDF of this defence statement to the CCBC, Should I also post a hard copy by Royal Mail recorded delivery and do I need to complete the other boxes on the defence and counterclaim form to go with it? I think Bargepole said to post and email the defence statement but I'm unsure whether I also need to complete the rest of the paper form that came with the claim.
    • Peperlini
    • By Peperlini 28th Jun 17, 1:53 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Peperlini
    • #7
    • 28th Jun 17, 1:53 PM
    • #7
    • 28th Jun 17, 1:53 PM
    Hi Coupon-mad


    Before filing my defence, I was considering adding one more point so that if it comes to a hearing I can use this also in my defence:


    The PCN stated that I parked for 18 mins but I believe I was only there for under 10 mins.


    Here is that paragraph:


    11. Proof of parking times. ANPR only shows time of entry and exit, not parking. The issues arising from the automated telephone system failure and the driver consequently abandoning the parking as no other form of payment was accepted amounted to approx 10 mins so the defendant puts to the claimant for strict proof that the ANPR cameras at entrance and exit point are calibrated, tested and timed correctly taking into account server delays so as to allow sufficient grace period for drivers to drive around the car park looking for a space, parking, getting in and out of a parking space calling the automated telephone payment system and/or queueing to exit the car park. That can add up to 16 minutes on a busy day.
    The defendant denies that the parking period noted on the ‘PCN’ was correct. The entry and exit times are not proof of parking. Further, the British Parking Association code of practice October 2012, of which the car park operator is a member, states the following In Section 13 grace periods:
    I) 13.2 : You should allow the driver a reasonable grace period in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.
    II) 13.4 :You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the grace period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.


    Do you think I should include this?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Jun 17, 1:07 AM
    • 51,855 Posts
    • 65,491 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 29th Jun 17, 1:07 AM
    • #8
    • 29th Jun 17, 1:07 AM
    That can add up to 16 minutes on a busy day.
    I would get rid of that line, especially if the car was there 18 minutes!


    the British Parking Association code of practice October 2012,
    As this parking event was in 2016 you need to cite the current BPA CoP (hasn't changed in over a year) not the old 2012 one from way back when!

    And re the defence, I say don't post it, waste of money - and Recorded Delivery to any company or service at or near the end of a working week, is NEVER a good plan...who's going to sign for it on a Saturday? It ends up delayed back at the sorting office - very dodgy when time is of the essence!

    Email it to the CCBC (claim number and 'defence' in the heading subject line) then phone them next week, mid-week, to check it's received OK.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Peperlini
    • By Peperlini 29th Jun 17, 9:02 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Peperlini
    • #9
    • 29th Jun 17, 9:02 AM
    • #9
    • 29th Jun 17, 9:02 AM
    Thank you again for your help Coupon-mad
    • Peperlini
    • By Peperlini 24th Aug 17, 3:53 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Peperlini
    Hi,

    So I have been out of the country for the last 4weeks, I called the county court before I left hoping that the case would have been stayed but it was only day 31, not 33 but they hadn't heard anything from CE

    Now I have returned home to a DQ form on the doorstep. Does that mean CE have actually paid to have a hearing and take me to court or are they still empty threats. I only have until the 29th August to respond and I'm having some health issues and really don't need the added anxiety that this is causing me. 😞
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Aug 17, 6:25 PM
    • 51,855 Posts
    • 65,491 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    As said here and in umpteen quadrillion CEL threads, it is just the next form, as expected:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73010800#post73010800

    How to complete the DQ is set out by bargepole in a link in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. Easy enough to follow.

    Does that mean CE have actually paid to have a hearing and take me to court
    Not yet. May well never happen, in our experience!

    or are they still empty threats.
    Almost certainly. Look what you find when you follow other CEL court defence threads on here and on pepipoo:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=115128

    Read the poster's posts from today - he is now claiming his costs to get revenge! Does that help fire you to carry on, hope so!

    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 25-08-2017 at 9:10 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 25th Aug 17, 11:22 AM
    • 1,185 Posts
    • 1,228 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    They havent paid the hearing fee.
    Theyll discontinue a bit further down the line. Having paid the filing fee, this is"free" pressure for them.
    • MrsKeegy
    • By MrsKeegy 27th Sep 17, 6:41 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    MrsKeegy
    Good evening guys,

    Apologies if I'm repeating what somebody else has asked. Today, I have received a 'letter before action' from civil enforcement ltd with draft particulars and a summary of the supreme court judgement between parkingeye v beavis.

    It's for a £140 parking fine because I was 40 minutes late returning to my car. I have no excuses or reasons other than it was an empty car park and I was supporting a local business as we was eating at a restaurant at the time. I'm also annoyed that a few weeks later my car was parked in this companies looked after car park and someone has scuffed and chipped my bumper and drove off - a place you expect your car will be safe.

    So basically, have I got a leg to stand on to fight it? And if so, how do I fight it? I've had two previous letters from them but I've just ignored them.

    Thank you in advance for any help or guidance.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Sep 17, 12:13 AM
    • 51,855 Posts
    • 65,491 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Same as here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5709731

    Look at the newbies thread again, it tells you how to respond to an LBCCC... and you DO need to respond. I hoped the NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST' thread was self explanatory.

    NO REPLY HERE PLEASE, THIS IS NOT YOUR THREAD!
    Please don't ask where the NEWBIES thread is...
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Peperlini
    • By Peperlini 9th Oct 17, 1:17 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Peperlini
    So an update from me, 5 weeks after filing the above defence statement by email I received the directions questionnaire. I completed with the suggested response as per Bargepole advice and stated dates that I could not do in part D4: 15th Dec 2017-2nd Jan 2018. I have now received my Notice of allocation from my local court giving a date and time for the hearing on 19 Dec 2017 when I am due to be away! Brilliant. I guess my options are to ask the court for a new hearing date. Take a day out of my family holiday to get it over and done with or just wait until after the 21st Nov when the hearing fee is due to see if it gets struck out at that time anyway.

    I will be very grateful for any help and advice you can give me with putting my witness statement/skeleton argument together nearer to the time. Thank you again for your support!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Oct 17, 5:19 PM
    • 15,962 Posts
    • 24,764 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Phone the court and get them to change the date, as you’ve already provided them with dates you cannot make via your DQ.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Peperlini
    • By Peperlini 21st Nov 17, 3:27 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Peperlini
    I have just over 4 weeks till my hearing date but I have to go into hospital next week unexpectedly so need to get cracking on my witness statement so that I can file everything before I go all foggy from drugs and anaesthetic :-)


    I am still hoping this will get discontinued but I guess I won't know this until the 11th hour so I will definitely be going after them for my costs if I win as they have acted unreasonably.


    Coupon mad - I would be so grateful if you could help me with my witness statement. I have looked at all the posts from Lamilad and Bargepole and Loadsofchildren123 but I am worried because having re-read my first letter to CEL denying the charge, I did actually admit that I was the driver. Now I am kicking myself profusely because I naively thought they would be human beings about it and I only started reading up on this forum once I started getting the ZZPS/Wright Hassle letters.


    I will post a copy of my first letter below, and my defence statement is above, only now I am unsure how much of it will be relevant:




    Dear Sir or Madam,





    Ticket number: XXXXXXXXXXXX


    Vehicle registration number: XXXXXXXXX


    Alleged incident: 15th September 2016





    You issued me with a parking ticket on 12th October 2016 which I received on the 17th October 2016 but I believe it was issued unfairly/unlawfully. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reasons:





    • After finding a parking space, I left my car to find the machine to pay for a ticket. I could not find a ticket machine but noticed a sign saying you could pay by phone. I tried twice unsuccessfully using the number provided on the sign – There was a technical fault with the line and it was not possible to complete payment. (Phone records enclosed). I returned to my car and drove out of the car park straight away so that I could park elsewhere. I did not continue to do my shopping or stay in the car park for a length of time. From memory I would say that I was there no longer than 8 mins. However you indicated 19 mins on the Parking charge notice which I contest. Would you kindly check your CCTV to see that I stood at the area for several minutes in an attempt to pay and then leaving to park elsewhere.





    • The Parking Charge notice to keeper is incorrect:
      The Notice to Keeper failed to meet the obligations of Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012 as it arrived late (after 15 days following the alleged parking office).








    If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.





    Yours faithfully,














    XXXXXXXXXX
    • Peperlini
    • By Peperlini 22nd Nov 17, 5:31 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Peperlini
    I am preparing my WS having followed all the other instructions thus far but I would be so grateful for your steer Coupon-Mad. I am not sure whether to include the original correspondence in my statement or just summarise the reasons that I stated I wouldn't be paying the invoice.
    Last edited by Peperlini; 25-11-2017 at 2:30 PM. Reason: included irrelevant quotes accidentally
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 23rd Nov 17, 9:22 AM
    • 1,185 Posts
    • 1,228 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    No, your WS is a set of facts. It tells the story from the start. Include all correspondence you want to include
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 23rd Nov 17, 12:23 PM
    • 1,757 Posts
    • 2,873 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    You've already identified yourself as driver in the letter you posted, so I don't see the point in relying on POFA.


    This extract from your letter forms the core of your witness evidence:

    • After finding a parking space, I left my car to find the machine to pay for a ticket. I could not find a ticket machine but noticed a sign saying you could pay by phone. I tried twice unsuccessfully using the number provided on the sign – There was a technical fault with the line and it was not possible to complete payment. (Phone records enclosed). I returned to my car and drove out of the car park straight away so that I could park elsewhere. I did not continue to do my shopping or stay in the car park for a length of time. From memory I would say that I was there no longer than 8 mins. However you indicated 19 mins on the Parking charge notice which I contest. Would you kindly check your CCTV to see that I stood at the area for several minutes in an attempt to pay and then leaving to park elsewhere.
    So really your case is that you made every effort to comply with the t&cs but it was impossible because THEIR phone system was not working. So you decided not to use the parking and left. This is completely different from grace periods. You weren't spending time parking and paying and then leaving. You were spending time trying to comply with the terms offered.


    Any contract offered was made void because it was impossible to comply with it.


    Produce copies of your phone bills showing the attempts you made to pay and the times of those calls.


    Did you perhaps send a text to a friend you were meeting to say "I'm stuck in this car park and their phone system is out of order so I can't pay and now I've got to park somewhere else, I'm going to be late"? That would be a gem of evidence.


    I think it's really helpful you invited them to look at their CCTV. It portrays you as completely honest.


    This is what I'd focus on.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,500Posts Today

6,166Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @bearface83: @MartinSLewis check out the @Missguided new 60% off offer. Upping the cost of items almost double to make us think it?s a?

  • RT @efitzpat: Thank you SO SO much @MartinSLewis for your Student Loans refund advice! I just got a grand refunded right before Xmas! Whoop?

  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • Follow Martin