CEL Claim Defence

Umkomaas

My whole reason for defence is the severity of the PCN for 21 minutes where the driver was waiting to pick someone up from the bar adjacent to the carpark.

Sorry, I’ve not ploughed through your defence, but the ‘severity of the PCN’ won’t wash, not since PE v Beavis. It’s pretty much a dead duck, unless you’ve got your brain fully around Beavis and can determine and articulate any cracks and attempt to squeeze your case through them.

Alternatively, you swallow the ‘severity’ argument (the court won’t be interested in a semi rant), and look at some of the very recent CEL defences, that are much more likely to push CEL towards a discontinuance, and use these as your base for a winnable defence.

Redx

I agree with the above

all a PPC has to do is quote the BPA CoP they signed up to and that the SUPREME COURT takes as gospel 2 years ago in the BEAVIS case

read clause #13 of the BPA CoP

Compare 21 minutes to the council version of 10 minutes allowed to stay or go to get an idea

its irrelevant if the vehicle was occupied or not, engine running or not

There are much better defence points to be used than extremely weak arguments about what constitutes being "parked" or not

dan10k

Umkomaas wrote: »

Sorry, I’ve not ploughed through your defence, but the ‘severity of the PCN’ won’t wash, not since PE v Beavis. It’s pretty much a dead duck, unless you’ve got your brain fully around Beavis and can determine and articulate any cracks and attempt to squeeze your case through them.

Alternatively, you swallow the ‘severity’ argument (the court won’t be interested in a semi rant), and look at some of the very recent CEL defences, that are much more likely to push CEL towards a discontinuance, and use these as your base for a winnable defence.

I understand what you're saying - I think I just needed to sound it out. Obviously there are other defences in what I've already written.

Am I right in assuming that I should have received a NTK? I never received anything titled as such. And if so, should this be high on the list of primary defences?

As far as what I've already drafted, I assume this looks okay?

Cheers.

Lamilad

My whole reason for defence is the severity of the PCN for 21 minutes where the driver was waiting to pick someone up from the bar adjacent to the carpark. The driver doesn't deny having pulled up in order to pick said person up

To be clear - are you defending as keeper on the basis that either you were not the driver or you are holding them to strict proof as to who was driving?

If you have not communicated with CEL about who was driving and they don't know then you should be defending as keeper only

dan10k

CEL has ever produced any picture evidence of the contravention and I suppose I will be defending as keeper as I’ve never communicated with them about who was driving.

As to the first question, I suppose the latter. Would it be more effective to claim the former?

dan10k

Bumping for a response.

Coupon-mad

Defend in the latter way, as keeper saying they have not shown any evidence of the identity of the driver. Your defence looks good enough and this is all about playing the court game, doing the DQ next, then the WS (as explained in the NEWBIES thread) until CEL discontinue.

dan10k

Just a quick one.

I've filled out and made 2 copies of the Directions Questionnaire.

Does it matter if I send the copies to the court/CEL or do the court require the original perhaps?

KeithP

dan10k wrote: »

Just a quick one.

I've filled out and made 2 copies of the Directions Questionnaire.

Does it matter if I send the copies to the court/CEL or do the court require the original perhaps?

Post #7 on Bargepole's walkthrough thread, linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ thread, suggest the emailing the DQ to the court is perfectly in order, and even gives the email address.

dan10k

Hi guys,

Bit of an update - I got the following letters in December and January.

imgur.com/a/vuOFD - hope this link works (is there a better way to share pics as a newer user?)

I received the APOC on Saturday 20th January 2018 - technically a day late, and as you will see, the date on their letter is 19th January 2018, which was supposed to be the date they were to serve these to me by. I understand this may be a bit of lame duck defence, but is that worth mentioning going forward.

I must admit I am a bit lost at this point as to how I should be responding with my own APOC. Can anyone point me in the right direction, or provide me some wisdom as to how I should best handle CEL's APOC?

Many thanks.