CEL CCJ hearing result

Redx

nobody can give you your chances without seeing all the paperwork and evidence from both sides and even then its judge bingo

losing the appeal would mean more costs incurred plus loss of your appeal filing fee

the £100 parking charge has been in place since OCT2012 in the BPA CoP and is a standard charge , the £25 charge is a court filing fee , and the typical £100 + £75 court fees is where we get the £175 from

purplesweetpotato

I was waiting for the hearing letter. As I mentioned I misread that letter. I would never knowingly opt for paper hearing cause I know 100% CEL won't turn up ...

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors..

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose) and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

nosferatu1001

It!!!8217;s not beyond corrupt - you didn!!!8217;t read court docs properly.

You can try for a set aside but I!!!8217;m not sure if you have grounds.

KeithP

purplesweetpotato wrote: »

... its beyond corrupt

I'm not sure that's right... in fact I'm pretty certain it isn't.

The court wrote to you suggesting that the case be decided on the papers.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, you accepted that.

That does not make the process corrupt.

We have not seen your defence, witness statement or evidence so there is no way anyone here can say whether the judge got it wrong or not.

The bottom line is... you made a mistake, and sadly mistakes often have a cost associated with them.

purplesweetpotato

nosferatu1001 Thanks but no thanks. I accept I misread the letter and it is beyond corruption regardless whether I read it properly or not. By your words, as I didn't read it properly, its not corruption and this is justified?? Your are funny

Redx

court costs are explained in here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=73276120&postcount=25

as you can see, there was no trial so they did not get the trial fee , just their initial MCOL fee plus the £100 standard parking charge fee which has its limit set 5.5 years ago which is when POFA2012 came in too

and you are alleging the system is corrupt, when it isnt

I am sure you meant a different word, but CORRUPT is what you used and is legally incorrect, so do not use it if you appeal it as a judge wont take kindly to it

post #24 above explains it

purplesweetpotato

So thanks you all for your advice here.

Even though I didn't get the outcome i wanted, I appreciate your help and advice you all give.

I hope this problem will be rooted out by parliament but until then, us average folks cannot thank you all enough.

Best of luck to other dealing with these thieves

bargepole

i get this sort of thing all the time. People email me, saying "I've received a letter from the Court, what should I do?". Sometimes they don't include a scan of the letter, perhaps expecting me to divine the contents telepathically.

The answer is, read the letter carefully, make a note of any deadline dates, and do what you're being asked to do. It's not rocket science.

The worst culprits are those who don't bother to read the bit about filing a Witness Statement, and think they can just rock up for the hearing, and everything will be ok.

No wonder the PPCs issue so many claims, with all the clueless muppets there are out there.

Coupon-mad

Did your defence clearly say that you could not be held liable under the POFA and did CEL admit in their WS and evidence that they were not relying on the POFA?

And was all contact with CEL and the defence written WITHOUT implying who was driving?

If so, then you MIGHT have grounds to argue the Judge erred in law.

And if you get fee remission, then well...why not appeal the decision on that basis? If it's free?

NOT that ''it's not fair, there should have been a hearing'' (because unfortunately you dropped that ball so that ship sailed) but on the basis of an error in law, because CEL can't hold a keeper liable IF they were not relying upon the POFA and only issued a non-POFA NTK.