Another CEL thread... particular question though...

Umkomaas

logician wrote: »

So no suggestion from the court that the Claimant would need to apply for Sanction of Relief?

Just a hold on case until all paperwork has been received

Relief from Sanction?

theflo2015

Just looking closer at my defence, and picking bits from others on here, there is a lot of reliance on the Beavis case. Though on my particulars of claim there is reference to Vine v Waltham Forest, seemingly a lady that was sick, parked her car to be sick and got a ticket/ PCN. Though the judge ruled in favour of the claimant (council) as she must have seen the signs to warn of charges.


Should I be looking to distinguish my case from this too?


Also, I called the court today and was told that despite the PoC arriving 4 days later than it should have, my deadline to get my defence in remains the same - 6th November.


One more thing, I have actually just been down to the place in question and taken photos of the journey through the car park that day and there is not a single sign that I could possibly have seen that day. Could that be used in my defence, or save it for later on?

Redx

the EVIDENCE is used later on at or after the DQ stage (read the BARGEPOLE post linked in the newbies sticky thread for a walkthrough)

the defence will need poor and inadequate signage as one of many defence points

Lamilad

Just looking closer at my defence, and picking bits from others on here, there is a lot of reliance on the Beavis case. Though on my particulars of claim there is reference to Vine v Waltham Forest, seemingly a lady that was sick, parked her car to be sick and got a ticket/ PCN. Though the judge ruled in favour of the claimant (council) as she must have seen the signs to warn of charges.

Should I be looking to distinguish my case from this too?

You need to read that case in more detail because the whole point of using it is, that judgement was overturned on appeal. It establishes (or re-establishes) case law that if a driver does not see the signs - or the signs are incoherent/ inadequate/ insufficient then their can be no consent from the driver, hence no contract.

Also, I called the court today and was told that despite the PoC arriving 4 days later than it should have, my deadline to get my defence in remains the same - 6th November.

the person you spoke to is wrong and you should complain. See LoC's 'CEL advice' thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5735738

and her example complaint letters:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5736717
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5735863

One more thing, I have actually just been down to the place in question and taken photos of the journey through the car park that day and there is not a single sign that I could possibly have seen that day. Could that be used in my defence, or save it for later on?

Well, of course this goes in your defence... and vine vs waltham backs it up

theflo2015

Sorry, seems a bit conflicting from RedX and Lamilad. I have used inadequate signage as one of my points, but are you saying that should I now make the point that the Vine case is not like mine as there is no clear signage at all, whereas in Vine there was?


Just read like RedX advised not to, and Lamilad the opposite... or RedX, were you just referring to the photographs?

Loadsofchildren123

They are both right.

You mention it briefly in your defence, then expand on it factually in your WS.

Eg in the defence: the contractual terms were not adequately displayed so that they could be seen/noticed by drivers, and the Defendant did not drive past or park near any signs containing such terms. Therefore no contract was offered or accepted.
In the WS: you describe the route and where signs were/weren't and refer to your photo/video evidence which you say you later went back to take, and you exhibit them.

theflo2015

Thank you Loadsofchildren (and Lamilad, RedX). The cheeky b******s have a sign at the entrance, set back at the roadside saying FREE PARKING, with 'see signs for terms and conditions' in the small print. Impossible to see as you drive in. Then in the car park you have to look really hard to actually find the terms and conditions. Nothing on the drive in, nothing in the middle parking areas, nothing on the walk way to the hospital and certainly nothing at the entrance or inside the buildings!


They must absolutely prey on vulnerable, ill people who just want to cough up and get rid of the hassle.

claxtome

It sounds like you have a good case here with main argument about lack of signage.

If you have time I would check on the council planning website for 2 things:
1) Is there planing permission for the land to be used as a car park
2) Do they have advertising consent for the signs in the car park
The lack of either of these is another argument in your defence. Wouldn't be your strongest one though.

Two other suggestions I would do when you have time but won't be used until WS/evidence stage:
1) Get someone to drive the route you took on the day whilst you video it. Better than walking it as it shows what the driver saw on the day. Should hopefully show the lack of signage etc. I would do this ASAP as you don't want signage to change. Whilst there ensure you have enough photos of lack of signage and take a close up of a sign(s) so you can read later the terms and conditions. Also ensure you have photos from where the car was parked.
2) This point can be left until later but proves very valuable. Go on Google earth and download a map/image of the car park in question. This will go in your evidence and you will annotate to show the route on taken on the day.

You asked the question:

I have seen many defences where the statement has been made that the event was so long ago they can not remember who was driving (or words to that effect), whereas I remember it clearly. So I don't know whether to be vague about it or state the facts as my justification

This is a difficult question to answer. Here is my stab at it from my limited experience->

The advantage of defending as keeper which is your right are:
A number of cases have been won where, as the driver has not been ascertained, the keeper can not be held reliable as the NTK did not follow Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. So obviously the more the NTK doesn't follow the wording and timing of POFA 2012 the stronger the case.

The advantage of defending as the driver is:
If you have a good defensive arguments like lack of signage and medical reason for overstay these can be fully explained and relied upon. LoadsofChildren123, legally trained, advised me in my '1 Big car park' thread to defend as a driver which in my case relied on lack of signage as main defence.

theflo2015

Hi all, just a quick update, and a bit of hope for everyone else still trying. I had a letter from CEL today containing the N279 to say that they are cancelling the court case.
I never updated my thread as there were an awful lot of CEL threads knocking about so just thought I would go it alone instead (once you get your head around the basic defences that other people have used you can tailor it to suit you and add your own defence pieces in too. It's quite daunting at first but spend enough time in a dark room and it becomes clearer). So to all those that are worried, it can be done, don't get over awed by the absolute chancers that CEL appear to be.
All I did was flag up the numerous errors by CEL to the courts, made a decent argument (whereby I stuck to my guns that I was the driver but the signage was poor and we were using medical facilities) and complained to anybody that I could think of that they were allowing their car park to be used in this way.
I know not all cases will be the same as mine, but it seems that if you put up a logically sound defence then CEL don't want the hassall of a potential loss in court.
Good luck everyone still trying, and thanks for the advice on here... but in the nicest possible way, I hope I never speak to any of you again!

Umkomaas

I never updated my thread as there were an awful lot of CEL threads knocking about so just thought I would go it alone instead (once you get your head around the basic defences that other people have used you can tailor it to suit you and add your own defence pieces in too. It's quite daunting at first but spend enough time in a dark room and it becomes clearer). So to all those that are worried, it can be done, don't get over awed by the absolute chancers that CEL appear to be.

Great piece of advice. Everything that could be written about a CEL case is already written and is contained on this forum. There is a limit to how many times regulars can (or are willing) to re-type the same stuff over and over again.

Well done on exploiting the rich resources of the forum and getting an excellent result. I’m sure that gives so much satisfaction for doing it yourself and coming out the other side in successfully defeating a scam. :T