CEL County court claim.

tgb155

The_Deep wrote: »

In this case, I cannot see the need for such a legalistic defence, but maybe I am too naive

Were this to go to court it would be a "he said" "she said" situation.

Ask yourself, who is the judge likely to believe, a fine upstanding citizen or a company known to seek revenge on co-op employees when they were sacked by the Co-op, obtains default CCJs by the dozen for five year old parking events without attempting to trace defendant, and got taken to court in Aberdeen for alleged fraud.

I know whose word I would take.

What would you suggest?

i did that in my first draft but was told it wasnt a defense?

The_Deep

I would suggest that you resort to telling the truth, trust in the Golden Thread of British Justice.


Far two many people on this forum secure their breeches with a belt, braces, and a piece of string.

nosferatu1001

No, I woudl go with the second one

TD - CEL arent doing court rn. They take it up to the exchange of WS but Ive not seen them actually dare go into a hearing.

Loadsofchildren123

"Ask yourself, who is the judge likely to believe, a fine upstanding citizen or a company known to seek revenge on co-op employees when they were sacked by the Co-op, obtains default CCJs by the dozen for five year old parking events without attempting to trace defendant, and got taken to court in Aberdeen for alleged fraud."


Don't put yourself on a soap box. Whilst we all know what the ppcs are like, you haven't got a cat in hell's chance of proving that to a judge in a small claim. All (s)he will be interested in is the facts of YOUR case. Don't leave it to chance. Put in a good legal defence, but don't put in a load of weak stuff that doesn't apply.


Standard/usual defences will either by non-POFA compliant and not driving so no liability, or if driving poor signage. Sometimes you get other defences (did pay, didn't park and it must be a mistake and can prove I was elsewhere, entered one digit wrong in the machine but paid, things like that).

Loadsofchildren123

Was your NtK POFA compliant?
Have you admitted you were driving? If you are defending as RK then you must deny that you were driving.

nosferatu1001

CEL dont use POFA compliant NtK, that Ive ever seen.

Quentin

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Was your NtK POFA compliant?
Have you admitted you were driving? If you are defending as RK then you must deny that you were driving.

According to the OP the driver was revealed in the initial appeal. (The driver is the defendant, not the OP)

tgb155

My Wife did appeal the initial letter, but she didn't get anywhere, I was trying to get info from the Hotels head office but that took some time and then they wouldn't help after saying that they would.

The NTK was dated the 20/02/2017 and the issue date was 06/02/2017 right on the 14 days.

When we received the Wright Hassall letter i tried to resolve it but then CEL took the claim back and went to court.

Im running out of time for the defense. so is there anything i should add or remove?

ixworth

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

CEL dont use POFA compliant NtK, that Ive ever seen.

This is often quoted, but what exactly is it that means their NTKs are non-POFA compliant?


I ignored my NTK and threw it away when I got it (bad advice at the time I know) so haven't got one to compare with the POFA requirements in detail.


Would it be that hard for them to simply comply? Wasn't POFA brought in to provide clear guidance to PPCs when the driver isn't known.

The_Deep

Put in a good legal defence, but don't put in a load of weak stuff that doesn't apply.

Have you ever tried telling the truth in court counsellor?