CEL setaside WIN!

Finglish2002

Hi all.
We had a very bizarre court appearance. My witness statement and defence can be seen on this forum. The facts of the court:
1, CEL were a no show
2, The judge said we were lucky as had they turned up we would have lost.
3, He stated all cases are tested against beavis and our defence case was not good enough
4, He had not dealt with CEL before
5, He stated the notice of enforcement had been sent to our current address but we have never received anything.
6, He thought it strange that CEL had agreed to the set aside
7, it now goes back to court and a defence needs to be filed.
8, we still dont have any details of the alledged parking incident other than the date registered in the CCJ
9, we were advised to consider our defence carefully and that it might be appropriate to contact CEL to do a deal to avoid court again.
So, we are now very bemused as popla etc was rejected and beavis sited as the case in law we would need to beat. We are now awaiting the witness statement from CEL?

Advice needed folks as we are now worried.

Cheers

beamerguy

The Judge is so behind the times, not dealt with CEL
before ??? Does he not understand what is happening
in the courts regarding CEL.

Re-training is the order of the day for him.

If you bump into him again, suggest he does a bit
of reading to get himself up to speed

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5764613

bargepole

Having seen your WS on the other thread (which should be merged - one case, one thread is the rule), I'm not surprised the DJ said your defence was not good enough to distinguish it from Beavis.

Paras. 2-3: You say that no NTK was served. But CEL will no doubt produce a copy, and say that it was posted. And in any event, that only works in your favour if you were not the driver.

Para. 4: They don't have to be the landowner to bring a claim, as long as they can show that they have been authorised by the landowner (or managing agent) to enforce parking, and take non-payers to court.

Para. 5: Total and utter rubbish. The Beavis case established that penalty charges, which do not directly reflect any losses suffered, can be justified if they serve a legitimate purpose in deterring abuse of the facility.

Para. 6: Also wrong. The consideration is the ability to park for free for a limited period, or to park in accordance with the published tariff, whichever applies.

Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid.

Half_way

you need to add this to your other thread, as its impossible to follow

peter_the_piper

Why is it that the victim does not turn up and its decided in CEL's favour but if CEL don't turn up they get another try.

beamerguy

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Why is it that the victim does not turn up and its decided in CEL's favour but if CEL don't turn up they get another try.

I lived in Malaysia for 5 years where corruption is rife.

If you had money, anyone,.... yes anyone, could be bought

Coupon-mad

it now goes back to court and a defence needs to be filed. we still dont have any details of the alledged parking incident other than the date registered in the CCJ

OK that's normal.

Which court and which Judge is this who had never come across CEL's tactics?

we were advised to consider our defence carefully

Good, it needs to be better than the WS. We can achieve that with you. Is the Judge going to order CEL to send you full particulars first, to allow you to then defend?

and that it might be appropriate to contact CEL to do a deal to avoid court again.

No, it won't be appropriate, so don't even think about it nor be worried. Not with a proper defence. They will discontinue and you will then need to ask the Judge to grant your considerable wasted costs then.

Half_way

you will then need to ask the Judge to grant your considerable wasted costs then.

Make sure you record your costs and time spent, instead of comming up with a ball park guestimae

Something like :
Item or Activity / From/To/Cost

so
Item/activity could be research or postage/travel costs for research and so on from/to when you started to when you stopped, and Cost being something at ( upto £19 per hour)
While the £19 figure is an upto i would advise you stay away from this to present a more reasonable approach.
all the way through you need to make sure that you are acting and are seen to be acting as the reasonable party

The_Deep

all the way through you need to make sure that you are acting and are seen to be acting as the reasonable party


Whilst pointing out the unreasonableness of the other side.


He stated all cases are tested against beavis


What, even applications for a set aside?

KeithP

Were you awarded costs at the set-aside hearing?
Keep in mind that £255 already spent when preparing your cost schedule.

Can we expect a fourth thread when/if CEL start again?

nosferatu1001

The_Deep wrote: »

all the way through you need to make sure that you are acting and are seen to be acting as the reasonable party


Whilst pointing out the unreasonableness of the other side.


He stated all cases are tested against beavis


What, even applications for a set aside?

Given, where a set aside isn’t automatic you need to show a reasonable prospect of success, then if the judge considers it important then yes, it can be “tested” against BEAVIS