At Court hearing stage with CEL who have provided a Witness Statement

Le_Kirk

Your links made live: -

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wg6fwcopvycveno/20180819_133238.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1e0z61qofrt0pad/20180819_134848.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qnp6dhbs87iev4s/AADFLYrl_vcB7EPR2sO8uspRa?dl=0

By the way it is just DEFENCE.

Umkomaas

That NtK isn't PoFA compliant. Doesn't carry the correct warning as per PoFA Schedule 4 para 9.

But this PCN is from Versatile Parking, so why are CEL pursuing this? Yeah, yeah, I know they have loads of trading names, and I'm not expert enough to give a definitive 'legal opinion', but my question should be fully explored.

Hopefully one of our legally qualified contributors might comment.

Lamilad

As Umko says their ntk most certainly does not comply with S4 P9 of pofa.

I also agree that, whilst 'Versatile' is one of CELs sister companies, they are still a separate company and, AIUI cannot litigate under CELs name.

The claim of £350 is a complete fantasy and something that will not impress the judge.

Their poc, as well as being signed by 'CEL' do not comply with CPR 22. It's worth inserting a para saying that the poc have not been verified within the meaning of r22 an as such should be struck out pursuant to the rule.

With no poc the can be no cause of action and the claim will have to be stuck out with an award for your wasted costs.

Castle

Can we assume that CEL's witness statement doesn't include any copies of the NTK and photos of the signs?

sdavies8501

The CEL witness statement includes photos of the sign, the ntk and reminders, the layout, parking spaces and the alleged vehicle entering and leaving the car park. As you can see CEL are being thorough with my case. I dont think I have read on here a similar approach being taken by CEL.

Castle

sdavies8501 wrote: »

The CEL witness statement includes photos of the sign, the ntk and reminders, the layout, parking spaces and the alleged vehicle entering and leaving the car park. As you can see CEL are being thorough with my case. I dont think I have read on here a similar approach being taken by CEL.

So why, as Umkomaas has pointed out, do you have a NTK from an entirely different company?

beamerguy

sdavies8501 wrote: »

The CEL witness statement includes photos of the sign, the ntk and reminders, the layout, parking spaces and the alleged vehicle entering and leaving the car park. As you can see CEL are being thorough with my case. I dont think I have read on here a similar approach being taken by CEL.

Wrong paperwork, wrong company ..... that is not CEL
being thorough ????

System

So why, as Umkomaas has pointed out, do you have a NTK from an entirely different company?

..hmmmm. Is it still school holidays?

sdavies8501

This is the first time I will be going to court so I am quite amateur with this. I assumed they could use a ntk from a different company as CEL may have acquired Verstaile. If the NTK has to be from CEL then I will argue this. But Iam not sure on the exact wording I need to say?

My main argument will be keeper liability, CEL counter is case where judge rules on balance of probabilities the driver was the registered keeper and that therefore knowlingly entered into a contract with the car park operator cps vs stephen james thomas. what do i say back to this?

i can understand my questions maybe silly but iam all new to this so quite nervous on what the judge will ask and how i need to respond to ensure I win the case which is next week...eeek

Castle

According to the BPA, Versatile Parking are not even listed under the CEL reference:-
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/BPA-Approved-Operators

(Companies House lists them as being dormant as at 31st March 2017).