Court Claim Form N1 Received for PCN 18 months ago

KeithP

tonkasdog wrote: »

I noticed on the Notice of Allocation I received that the claimant must by the 15 Aug pay the court a £25 fee or the case will be struck off. Is it common for them to not pay this and it be struck off?

Are you following any other CEL threads?

Yes, it is quite possible... even probable.

KeithP

tonkasdog wrote: »

There where no witnesses, I have no evidence. I wasn't driving the vehicle at the time

You, as the keeper of the vehicle, are a witness to events.

tonkasdog

It's a Ltd company owned vehicle but I'm the director acting on the companies behalf. What is the outcome if no written evidence or witness statements are sent over?

Quentin

It's to your detriment not to supply a WS

See advice on preparing a WS in the newbies FAQ thread. #2

KeithP

You will lose.

I suspect that CEL are waiting to see if you produce a WS and evidence. If you don't they will pay the hearing fee and win the case.
If you do produce the goods they will probably not bother paying the fee and the case gets struck out.

I must stress that is purely guesswork on my part.
My crystal ball is not very clear in this weather.

tonkasdog

Thanks Quentin, I'll check that over and Keith I'm guessing your right even with the dodgy weather

tonkasdog

Hi guys,
Just been reading through bargepoles post and it does worry me slightly.
He mentions a lot of the facts my case relies on as follows:

the arrangements between landowner and PPC are not relevant, as has been ruled by the higher courts. You need to concentrate on things that make your case substantially different, otherwise you're unlikely to win.
MY CASE IS NOTHING SPECIAL, DRIVER WASN'T AWARE OF SIGNAGE AND OVERSTAYED

I didn't see the signs: Unless you can demonstrate, with evidence, that the signage in the car park was obscured, printed in a tiny font, high up on poles or otherwise unreadable, this is a rubbish argument. The signs are there to be seen, and you should have seen them.
HE DIDN'T SEE THE SIGNS, BUT ACCORDING TO THIS HE SHOULD HAVE DONE

No loss to PPC: There doesn't have to be any more, since the Supreme Court ruling in Parking Eye v Beavis. All they have to show is that there is a legitimate interest in enforcing the rules of the car park. So don't use phrases like 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' (GPEOL), that's a guaranteed loser. Also, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR) is a dead duck following that Beavis ruling.
THATS ANOTHER POINT I USED THAT SEEMS WILL BE GOING NOWHERE

tonkasdog

Hi guys, another quick question, on the Notice of Allocation letter is has the following:
The parties shall by 4pm on 15 Aug file at court and serve on each other any written evidence which they propose to rely, which shall include statements of the parties themselves IF they wish to give evidence.

Is this basically the witness statement they are referring to?
So I should also receive written evidence from the Claimant as it says "serve on each other"
When I had to send a copy of my defence to the court and the claimant should the claimant have sent me a copy of their defence?

bargepole

tonkasdog wrote: »

When I had to send a copy of my defence to the court and the claimant should the claimant have sent me a copy of their defence?

How can the claimant have a 'defence'?

They are the claimant. Their case is stated in their particulars of claim.

You are the defendant. You have filed a defence.

Now both parties must file and serve their witness statement, and any evidence which supports their case.

It's not brain surgery.

tonkasdog

When's it's all new to you it's not straight forward!