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
    • Cateek
    • By Cateek 29th Oct 17, 10:21 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Cateek
    CEL defence claim letter due nov
    • #1
    • 29th Oct 17, 10:21 PM
    CEL defence claim letter due nov 29th Oct 17 at 10:21 PM
    Hello, hoping someone can help
    I have found the newbies thread useful and extended my court claim from 14 to 28 days but runs out 4th November.

    It’s been a bit of a nightmare getting my head round the legalese, rules and preparing a defence statement as I only get a half hour then my baby wakes up.

    I started getting letters around the same time he was born, now he is 6 months and teething so I get little peace. Sorry to moan.

    Pcn in feb, I didn’t reply, letter before claim in April (I was a bit preoccupied) CEL sent it to zzps, I wrote to CEL May to explain but no reply, then Wright Hassall took over, I wrote to them, they said they wouldn’t send me contract between land owner or give me other info.. Now had the official court claim from county court business centre.


    Here is my attempt at a defence statement (any advice or s gratefully received)

    Claim No.:

    Between

    Civil Enforcement LTD

    (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxx

    ​ (Defendant)



    ________________________________________



    DEFENCE STATEMENT

    ________________________________________



    I am responding as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from my previous vehicle having been parked in ................ on........February 2017



    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:



    1. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK). I do not recall ever having received a NTK though did receive a Parking Charge Notice as a first letter a week after the parking event in question then a letter before action dated 11 weeks later (though I do not know the date it arrived). Indeed other letters arrive 2 weeks after the date which has been recorded on the letters (e.g claim particulars).



    2. The vehicle was parked in a bay which did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park, contrary to the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) which applied to Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) at the time.



    3. Signs are required to be well placed signs, such that disabled people can see the full terms from their vehicle at all points of the car park (from the applicable BPA CoP (Feb-Oct 2014 version)). The driver was disabled using crutches and involved with physiotherapy treatment at the time of the parking event.



    4. The allegation appears to be an ‘overstay’ by 14 minutes, timed by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit. However, there is no evidence of actual parking beyond the hour and the extra few minutes is explained by the time it takes to get parked and the longer time it takes someone using crutches with limited mobility and pain issues to get in and out of a vehicle safely, plus the time to drive in/out of the car park. As the driver was disabled using crutches at the time, the PCN should never have been pursued after they were informed in May 2017. The applicable 2014 BPA CoP states at 16:

    ‘The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people… You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time... 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.’



    The October 2015 BPA rules also outline a grace period and were not followed.



    Photographs of the vehicle which form the Claimant's claim do not show a vehicle which is parked. It shows a vehicle entering a car park, and leaving. Indeed, the photos are produce from machines. A moving vehicle is not parked, and the court should note that it can take time both to locate and park in a parking space, and also to exit the parking space and car park. On that occasion the driver had to wait for a space to be cleared before parking (this was explained when I wrote to CEL and will be detailed in the witness statement).



    5. I did request a copy of the NTK letter, which I never received, following the parking charge notice (PCN). I telephoned CEL and I wrote letters to CEL and Wright Hassall explaining my circumstances, requesting information and a POPLA code but was eventually told by Wright Hassall that I was out of time to appeal. This is despite both companies knowing that I, the registered keeper had recently given birth (April 2017) when CEL was demanding action.



    6. I submit that I was not afforded any method by which to appeal, nor given any information about complaints procedures to the landowner. This omission prevented me from being able to get this charge cancelled or discussed despite me contacting both CEL and Wright Hassall explaining the situation and asking for information about who the land owner was and the nature of the contract between them and CEL. This is a right that I believe existed as an exemption clause for shoppers written into the landowner contract/retailer user manual but a material fact which is withheld from consumers. If I could have appealed to POPLA or had been informed that the landowner could deal with such complaints and cancel charges, I would have done so.



    7. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.



    8. The Claimant’s representatives, ZZPS and Wright Hassall have artificially inflated value of the Claim from £140 to £323.93 I submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. (Further, Wright Hassall appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct??? And unfair consumer contract regulations??



    10. I would like the Court to take note that I feel I was then harassed by letter after letter from different collection agencies, despite not being liable.



    11. The Claim Form (letter before action) issued on the ............by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by ‘Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)’. The formal letter of claim from Wright Hassall wrote it was instructed by ZZPS Limited on behalf of CEL.



    12. I never received a notice of rejection from the operator/parking company despite explaining why I was late and there being* no real reason to insist in a time limit, looking at the POPLA website FAQ’s, they mention extendable time limits on submitting appeals and no mention of time limits for getting issued a POPLA code. I feel this was unreasonable.



    13. Practice directives were not followed as CEL didn’t reply, consider my circumstances or give POPLA code to help clear things up or enter into any dialogue. Then Wright Hassall didn’t usefully engage with my questions and didn’t advise their client (CEL) that they had broken rules of grace time and the disability act. They did not enter into any dialogue /exchange of information before commencing proceedings as per the Objectives of pre-action conduct and protocols so there was no possibility of mutual understanding, resolution or alternative dispute resolution. The result was for them to go straight to court proceedings and in my opinion, waste court time.



    14. CEL suggests that a Beavis case sets a precedent, this case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and is notably different from this material case.



    15. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.



    16. In the event the claim progresses, then as an unrepresented litigant in person, I reserve the right to alter, vary and add to this defence or reply to any further particulars of claim/documents the Claimant may provide.



    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.



    Signed



    Registered Keeper/ Defendant
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 29th Oct 17, 10:24 PM
    • 4,717 Posts
    • 3,042 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 29th Oct 17, 10:24 PM
    • #2
    • 29th Oct 17, 10:24 PM
    I do not recall ever having received a NTK though did receive a Parking Charge Notice as a first letter a week after the parking event in question
    That's the Notice to Keeper.


    Have you read this very new CEL thread:

    Last edited by KeithP; 29-10-2017 at 10:26 PM.
    .
    • Cateek
    • By Cateek 29th Oct 17, 11:13 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Cateek
    • #3
    • 29th Oct 17, 11:13 PM
    • #3
    • 29th Oct 17, 11:13 PM
    Ah, thank you!!
    No, I had missed this one and have fallen victim to that point already and started the clock.
    Aargh!
    I will add a line of complaint about that though. I threw away the envelope of the PoC but did record ‘ date received’ on the envelope and yes they dated it 11th October and I got it on the 28th.

    I think I would like to just lodge a defence and hopefully it will be finished with as it’s a real bind on my life. Young baby, very little sleep and too much to do, this has taken a lot of time and energy.

    Hopefully my defence statement has enough points in it.

    Thanks again for your quick reply
    • Redx
    • By Redx 29th Oct 17, 11:19 PM
    • 16,865 Posts
    • 20,944 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 29th Oct 17, 11:19 PM
    • #4
    • 29th Oct 17, 11:19 PM
    on a skim read I dont see clause #13 of the BPA CoP mentioned (two grace periods , never mind the extra time needed for somebody with a newborn to deal with which I believe is also in the CoP)

    there is a vague paragraph , so expand it and be more specific

    so ensure you add in any BPA CoP breaches that you can find

    landowner contract
    signage
    not the same as BEAVIS
    POFA2012 failures etc
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 30th Oct 17, 10:01 AM
    • 1,136 Posts
    • 1,160 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #5
    • 30th Oct 17, 10:01 AM
    • #5
    • 30th Oct 17, 10:01 AM
    The clock starts ticking from when you have the PoC served on you, not from when you acknowledge
    Email the CCBC stating you received the full POC on 28.10 and as you have acknowledged you will ensure your full defence is served by 28.10 plus 28 days.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 30th Oct 17, 11:17 AM
    • 7,409 Posts
    • 6,455 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 30th Oct 17, 11:17 AM
    • #6
    • 30th Oct 17, 11:17 AM
    What a waste of your time.


    Is there no judge out there with the cojones to say enough is enough and fine them enough to make them think twice about bringing in these cases.
    Last edited by The Deep; 30-10-2017 at 11:19 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 30th Oct 17, 12:02 PM
    • 1,740 Posts
    • 2,837 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #7
    • 30th Oct 17, 12:02 PM
    • #7
    • 30th Oct 17, 12:02 PM
    As you filed the AoS before, I think the safest thing is to assume that you have 14 days from the service of the PoC to file your defence (as you received them on a Saturday you start counting from the next working day, ie today - so 13 November).




    However, these PoC have not been validly served because they are out of time (out of the 14 days allowed by Rule 7.4(1)(b)). I'd wrote to them to record that you received the PoC on Saturday 28 October, point out that this is significantly out of time under Rule 7.4(1)(b) and the sanctions in Rule 3.8 therefore apply. The only way they can file out of time PoC is if they successfully apply for relief from sanctions under Rule 3.9 and you require them to do so. Ask for an explanation why the PoC and covering letter were both backdated to 11 October when they were clearly not sent on that day. Ask for the Certificate of Service filed with the court.


    Write in the same terms to the court. The PoC have been served x days out of time under Rule 7.4(1)(b), Rule 3.8 therefore applies (the effect of which is that without a successful application by the Claimant under Rule 3.9 for relief from the R3.8 sanctions the PoC have not been "served" pursuant to Rule 7.4).


    You may prefer to just get on with things though. I think the PPC probably would get relief in a small claim, where the courts are less fussed by rule breaches. In which case, rather than assuming you have 28 days, because you've already filed your AoS you should assume you have a further 14 days to file your defence (13 November).


    You could always write those letters, but get on and get your defence ready and decide what to do on 12 November if you haven't heard back from either the court or CEL.
    • Cateek
    • By Cateek 1st Nov 17, 12:51 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Cateek
    • #8
    • 1st Nov 17, 12:51 AM
    • #8
    • 1st Nov 17, 12:51 AM
    Thank everyone, but your right, this does confuse me and I bet others like me.
    Reading CoP and pre action protocols makes me go cross eyed.

    Still can’t find anything about pregnancy or having a new born as mitigating circumstances explaining why I didn’t appeal in time.

    To be clear, the driver was using crutches and seeing a physio for a recognised condition but did not have a blue badge. Am sure temporary disability still counts. And vehicle was on the premises for 74mins in a 1 hour free car park. ( have redone my defence statement and will PST it again for comments but looks like you lot might be saying I could have more time. To be honest, though, it be good to get it done. Bad time for my printer to break though, can I email the cubic?

    Should I write something like this below (will put in my dates of letters too later but have an ill baby asleep on my shoulder right now and don’t want to move too much.

    Dear court

    I believe the forms for defending and acknowledging service are supposed to be provided with the further Particulars of claim PoC (CPR 7.8) CEL sent the claim forms early and the PoC were dated on the letter 11 th October but didn’t arrive through my door until the 28th October. I have been told this Means the PoC were not validly served because they were out of time (out of the 14 days allowed by Rule 7.4(1)(b)). As I received the PoC on from CEL on Saturday 28 October, this is significantly out of time under Rule 7.4(1)(b) and the sanctions in Rule 3.8 therefore apply. Meaning CEL should file out of time PoC under Rule 3.9, I would require them to do this.
    I am also going to write to them to ask why they took so long to be sent.
    • Cateek
    • By Cateek 1st Nov 17, 1:00 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Cateek
    • #9
    • 1st Nov 17, 1:00 AM
    • #9
    • 1st Nov 17, 1:00 AM
    Actually I did the Aos on the 17 October so their PoC arrived just 11/3 days later so they are within the 14 days, sorry! Just the POC is dated 11th but came through on the 28th.
    • Cateek
    • By Cateek 1st Nov 17, 11:55 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Cateek
    Hello. I’m Hoping someone can have a look at this defence letter (below), some changes have been made.
    Do you think it will do? Or should I find more points. I am aware it is far from concise though.

    Some question marks are on point 9 as I’m not sure if this is right.

    I couldn’t find anything about pregnancy or New borns meaning people can have extra time to respond

    Also still confused how long I have to put in defence, their claim letter said consider it served 5 days after the issue date so 10th becomes Sunday 15th, if I start the 28 day count from the Monday then on 13th November Defence is due???

    Sorry to be a pain x


    Defence letter is below

    I am responding as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from my previous vehicle having been parked in ................ on........February 2017




    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:



    1. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK).

    2. The allegation appears to be an ‘overstay’ by 14 minutes, timed by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit. The car park apparently offered 1 hour free parking and my vehicle was there 14 minutes past that hour.

    However, there is no evidence of actual parking beyond the hour. British Parking Association Code of Practice (BPA CoP) 13.2 and 13.4 say companies should allow a grace period, so to issue me a ticket is to breach these BPA CoP. The extra few minutes could simply be explained by the time it takes to get parked. However the driver was disabled at the time and it takes a longer time for someone using crutches with limited mobility and pain issues to get in and out of a vehicle safely, plus there is time to drive in/out of the car park.



    3. As the driver was disabled using crutches at the time, the PCN should never have been pursued after they were informed by myself in writing in May 2017 (Wright Hassall were also informed of this) The applicable BPA CoP version 6 states at 16:

    ‘The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people… in the CoP version in 2014 it explained “You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time... 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.’

    Therefore BPA rules CoP 13 and 16 were not followed.



    4. Photographs of the vehicle which form the Claimant's claim do not show a vehicle which is parked. It shows a vehicle entering a car park, and leaving. Indeed, the photos are produce from machines. A moving vehicle is not parked, and the court should note that it can take time both to locate and park in a parking space, and also to exit the parking space and car park. On that occasion the driver had to wait for a space to be cleared before parking (this was explained when I wrote to CEL and will be detailed in the witness statement).

    BPA CoP 20.5a states companies can use photographs as evidence but says the photo must refer to and confirm the incident, the keeper has only has photos of entering and leaving this does not constitute an incident as the incident was supposedly and overstay parking and the photos do not show; when and for how long the vehicle was parked. If they have any other photos that would be useful evidence but 5hese photos give no confirmation.

    5. The vehicle was parked in a bay which did not have any signs in view with the full terms of the car park, contrary to the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) which applied to Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) at the time. The vehicle had been reversed into the space and was not in any view of signs. This breaches 18.3 of the BPA CoP version 6



    6. Signs are required to be well placed signs, such that disabled people can see the full terms from their vehicle at all points of the car park (from the applicable BPA CoP 18.10 version 6). The driver was disabled using crutches and involved with physiotherapy treatment at the time of the parking event so BPA CoP 18.10 was also breached. When I later visited the car park I saw that there are only 4 signs (entrance signs are approx 6 feet up a pole, there are 2 further signs beside spaces (easily obscured by other cars) and then another sign at the exit, signs are only on one side of the car park.



    7. I did request information from CEL and a POPLA code which I never received, following the parking charge notice (PCN). I telephoned CEL and I wrote letters to CEL and Wright Hassall explaining my circumstances, requesting information and a POPLA code but was eventually told by Wright Hassall that I was out of time to appeal. This is despite both companies knowing that I, the registered keeper had recently given birth (April 2017) when CEL was demanding action. Having a new born baby meant i was late replying to their demands by approximately 2 weeks, I think the company was unreasonable not to take this into account.



    8. I submit that I was not afforded any method by which to appeal, nor given any information about complaints procedures to the landowner. This omission prevented me from being able to get this charge cancelled or discussed despite me contacting both CEL and Wright Hassall explaining the situation and asking for information about who the land owner was and the nature of the contract between them and CEL. This is a right that I believe existed as an exemption clause for shoppers written into the landowner contract/retailer user manual but a material fact which is withheld from consumers. If I could have appealed to POPLA or had been informed that the landowner could deal with such complaints and cancel charges, I would have done so.



    9. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.



    10. The Claimant’s representatives, ZZPS and Wright Hassall have artificially inflated value of the Claim from £140 to £323.93 I submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery????, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. (Further, Wright Hassall appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct??? And unfair consumer contract regulations??



    11. I would like the Court to take note that I feel I was then harassed by letter after letter from different collection agencies, despite not being liable.



    12. The Claim Form (letter before action) dated the ............April 2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by ‘Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)’. The formal letter of claim from Wright Hassall wrote it was instructed by ZZPS Limited on behalf of CEL.




    13. I never received a notice of rejection from the operator/parking company despite explaining why I was late and there being* no real reason to insist in a time limit, looking at the POPLA website FAQ’s, they mention extendable time limits on submitting appeals and no mention of time limits for getting issued a POPLA code. I feel this was unreasonable.




    14. Pre-action protocols were not followed as CEL didn’t reply, consider my circumstances or give POPLA code to help clear things up or enter into any dialogue. Then Wright Hassall didn’t usefully engage with my questions and didn’t advise their client (CEL) that they had broken rules of grace time and the Equality Act 2010. They did not enter into any dialogue /exchange of information before commencing proceedings as per the Objectives of pre-action conduct and protocols so there was no possibility of mutual understanding, resolution or alternative dispute resolution. The result was for them to go straight to court proceedings and in my opinion, waste court time.



    15. CEL suggests that a Beavis case sets a precedent, this case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and is notably different from this material case.




    16. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.




    17. In the event the claim progresses, then as an unrepresented litigant in person, I reserve the right to alter, vary and add to this defence or reply to any further particulars of claim/documents the Claimant may provide.



    18. Lastly, I would like the court to note the Particulars of Claim were received separate to the Claim form. The PoC was received on the 28/10/17 though they were dated 10/10/17

    I believe the forms for defending and acknowledging service are supposed to be provided along with the further Particulars of claim PoC (CPR 7.8). My Claim forms arrived 12/10/17 date on letter was 10/10/17 and the PoC arrived 16 days later, they were dated on the letter 11 th October but didn’t arrive through my door until the 28th October. I have been told this Means the PoC were not validly served because they were out of time (out of the 14 days allowed by Rule 7.4(1)(b)). As I received the PoC on from CEL on Saturday 28 October, this is out of time under Rule 7.4(1)(b) and the sanctions in Rule 3.8 therefore apply. Meaning CEL should file out of time PoC under Rule 3.9.



    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.




    Signed




    Registered Keeper/ Defendant
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 2nd Nov 17, 1:35 PM
    • 1,740 Posts
    • 2,837 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Also still confused how long I have to put in defence, their claim letter said consider it served 5 days after the issue date so 10th becomes Sunday 15th, if I start the 28 day count from the Monday then on 13th November Defence is due???


    Yes
    • Cateek
    • By Cateek 3rd Nov 17, 10:53 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Cateek
    “they failed to disclose any cause of action” - what does that mean exactly? I thought their action was to chase someone for money but this must be wrong.

    Has anyone seen anything about pregnancy or having a new born? Can find anything in the BPA CoP about it or in general searches of legal defences.

    Other people’s defences have said signs were not lit, but the ticket I got as the keeper was for a vehicle parked in the day so am I wouldn’t bother saying that right?

    Another thing people said was that they cannot be expected to recall the driver but I have said the driver was disabled so I can’t say that either. Is there a point in proceedings that you do have to identify the driver (like if it did get to court)?

    Sorry if these sound stupid questions, I can see there are meany people requesting help so you folks are reading a lot of defence statements.

    I had posted my draft in #10, does anyone think I should be reorganising it or adding to it? Other people have been directly quoting pre action practice directives whereas I just referenced or referred to them. Should I quote them?

    Thanks in advance of any advice
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 3rd Nov 17, 11:02 PM
    • 729 Posts
    • 1,349 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Is there a point in proceedings that you do have to identify the driver (like if it did get to court)?
    Unless you're good, you may struggle to duck this question if a district judge asks you directly if you were the driver...
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 4th Nov 17, 7:52 AM
    • 326 Posts
    • 322 Thanks
    claxtome
    Suggestion about defence:
    Check spelling and grammar as seen some problems with both.

    Last line of paragraph 3 just mention CoP 16.

    6. Signs are required to be well placed signs, such that disabled people can see the full terms from their vehicle at all points of the car park (from the applicable BPA CoP 18.10 version 6). The driver was disabled using crutches and involved with physiotherapy treatment at the time of the parking event so BPA CoP 18.10 was also breached. When I later visited the car park I saw that there are only 4 signs (entrance signs are approx 6 feet up a pole, there are 2 further signs beside spaces (easily obscured by other cars) and then another sign at the exit, signs are only on one side of the car park
    Just reword after looking at CoP 18.10 again.

    Suggest remove paragraph 11 as doesn't add to your defence.
    • Cateek
    • By Cateek 30th Nov 17, 10:51 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Cateek
    Hello again
    I am now filling out my directions questionnaire for the small claims track and have a question. I’ve not seen this in the newbies post.
    Part of my defence was that the driver was temporarily disabled, using crutches and receiving physiotherapy treatment.
    1. Does a letter from a physiotherapist (saying the driver was indeed getting treatment and prescribed crutches) count as an extra witness or expert evidence or neither (maybe it’s just letter supporting my witness statement)?
    2. If I do produce this letter of proof then I will also be naming the driver, is this a problem? Will I have to share that information before the court date or just if I get heard in court?

    Thanks for any advice
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 30th Nov 17, 10:59 PM
    • 729 Posts
    • 1,349 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Letter. Attach it to your statement as an exhibit.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 30th Nov 17, 11:13 PM
    • 4,717 Posts
    • 3,042 Thanks
    KeithP
    Cateek, I've not read the rest of your thread, but could you not just say 'an occupant of the car needed to use crutches'?

    But do bear in mind Johnersh's post #13.
    Last edited by KeithP; 30-11-2017 at 11:15 PM.
    .
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

2,405Posts Today

8,003Users online

Martin's Twitter