CCJ Set aside - now defence needed CEL Ltd

Le1anne

Thank you! I updated the document and included a large section about signage that was included in one of the threads on the NEWBIES thread.

5. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

b. In the absence of strict proof, I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
d. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.

e. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.


f. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

g. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.


h. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

i. the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
j. the sum pursued exceeds £100.
k. there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

It was just a copy and paste job as i had to send it today

I also added in regarding Henry Greenslade from the same thread

6. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car over year and half later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.[/I][/I]

I don't think i made a good enough point regarding the POC being backdated, but i did talk about them being vauge
1. The vague Particulars of the Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

Can i make this point at a later date maybe when the DQ is requested?

Again thank you so much this site has been very helpful and the NEWBIES page is great