CEL County court claim.

nosferatu1001

You’d think it would be easy, but it seems to elude most ppc.

tgb155

Just re reading this. should i remove this part as we appealed it, however i do not have the original NTK so it could be that they haven sent the correct letter?

Your thoughts please, i need to email the court tomorrow .

The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.

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 it is believed that neither the signs, nor any NTK mentioned a possible additional £149.66 for outstanding debt and damages.

Quentin

Are they pursuing your wife as the keeper or the driver? (Your OP suggests she appealed as the driver)

Coupon-mad

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

Well that's late then isn't it!!

Even if you don't know what the NTK wording was, we do. Belive us, CEL have never used a POFA-compliant NTK, ever. It wasn't worded to comply with para 9 of the POFA Schedule 4, and anyway, you've confirmed above it wasn't deemed to have possibly been 'served' by day 14 (in your hands).

However, as Quentin says, are they pursuing the driver who admitted it earlier?

Or are they pursuing the registered keeper and were never told who was driving in any ill-advised first appeal?

tgb155

Thanks Coupon-Mad, i presumed it was like a speeding ticket and as long as posted by would be served correct. So i will keep it in.

Yes They are pursuing my wife who appealed. she argued that she did completed the required sign in on a tablet as she was directed to by the receptionist. Does that change any of my defense?

thank you

TGB

tgb155

I think I may have been late submitting my defence. Do I take it as the serve date is 5 days after the issue date? Which was the 11th october. So can i tale it that i have 28 days after the 16th?

If not what can I do. I put the defence in today by email to the court.

younasm

You have 28 days from 16th Oct to submit your defence. You should be fine to submit on Monday 13th Nov.

Quentin

tgb155 wrote: »

Yes They are pursuing my wife who appealed. she argued that she did completed the required sign in on a tablet as she was directed to by the receptionist. Does that change any of my defense?

thank you

TGB

In that case you cannot use any pofa defence points

Loadsofchildren123

W's defence therefore should simply be that she complied with the t&cs so there was no breach of contract.


This will come down to who the judge believes. Given that the PPC cannot produce anyone who was standing next to your wife who can say in their personal knowledge that she didn't sign in on the tablet, they are more likely to believe your wife.


You need to keep this simple.

[Deleted User]

I'd do a simple defence. The signage no doubt says hotel patrons only. The ANPR is merely a method of enforcing that (and one prone to error).

If wife can produce a conference delegates list/business letter confirming meeting etc to append to her witness evidence she can prove she was a patron - with or without a bar tab.

If you have not done so already, I'd write to CEL requesting a maintenance log for their computer terminal and logs of all registrations inputted that day (that's not personal data unless married up with a car or individual by the way). I'd also get the entrance/exit logs.

In my case against a hotel scheme, I checked in and left site in my car to grab some food before departing. The issue was self-evidently that their system did not reconcile quickly enough in that period. I got issued a PCN for that but not for any subsequent comings or goings. Naturally a manual check by someone with a brain could've resolved the aggro much earlier.

If they've had the temerity to issue, request all of the supporting docs. If you're not provided with it and merely get a generic statement it will make this much easier to attack in a hearing.