CEL CCC - Directions Questionnaire (Title changed for attention)

HayleyD83

Thank you Coupon - Mad! have made a few more slight tweaks and will need a full proof read, spelling and grammar check

In the County Court at Kingston Upon Thames
Claim no: xxx
Between Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
And
xxxxx (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am xxxx of xxxxx the defendant in this matter. I will say as follows
2. On xxxxx I arrived at the Car Park at 324 Hook Road Chessington behind Sainsbury’s Local accompanied by my Grandfather who was aged 87 at the time in question and who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia amongst other long-term health conditions. (Please see attached appendix 1. evidence of Grandads health conditions in the form of a letter from his doctor)
3. I have visited this car park many times over the years being a life time resident of Chessington, historically there have never been any restrictions in parking in this particular car park in the times I have visited in the past. As this car park has been free for as long as I am able to remember in accordance with BPA code of conduct 18.11 ‘Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.’ As mentioned I have used this car park for years and never encountered any problems until this time.
4. Upon Arrival at the car park as I drove in, I noted a sign to my right-hand side stating ‘Free Parking 45 Mins see car park signs for terms and conditions.’ (please see attached appendix 2 photograph of signage at the entrance to the car park taken from inside the vehicle)
5. I then entered the car park and waited for a space close to the entrance to become free with a view to keeping the journey from the car to the shops as short as possible.
6. Whilst Parking and assisting my Grandfather with taking off his seat belt and safely disembarking the vehicle my attention was drawn to some signs posted next to each bay which said ’45 Minutes Free Parking’ in bold font, followed by some other text below in grey font which is not legible from inside the vehicle (Please see attached Appendix 3 which is a photograph taken from inside my vehicle in the same bay that I parked on in the date in question.)
7. We then proceeded to visit Sainsbury’s supermarket which is situated on the same land as the car park and Jenny’s caf! on the same parade to purchase a hot drink and returned to the car. I assisted Grandad once more in boarding the vehicle, putting on his seat belt and then exited the car park.
8. I thought no more of it until xxx when I received a letter from the Claimant stating that I was required to pay xxx in respect of breaching ‘terms and conditions’ by over staying at the car park by 18 minutes. The letter I received was of such poor quality and so sparse in detail that I initially dismissed it as fraudulent. (Please see attached Appendix 4)
9. After receiving subsequent letters to this effect stating that the charge had increased to xxxx (Please see appendices xx – xxx) I lodged an appeal directly to the claimant explaining that I had been assisting my elderly Grandfather who suffers from various health conditions including Alzheimer’s and Vascular dementia with his shopping that day. My appeal was rejected on the grounds that it had been lodged too late (Please see attached appendix xxx response My emailed appeal to the claimant and subsequent response.)
10. Under the Equality Act 2010, specifically Chapter 20.3, service providers are required to make reasonable adjustments for persons with disabilities. This includes providing extra time for a disabled person to use the service. Failure to do so not only constitutes discrimination, in accordance with The EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers, (specifically paragraphs 14.58, 5.4 and 5.34) but also renders any contract unenforceable under the prevailing legislation, namely paragraph 142 of the Equality Act. Because this car park is open to the public, the landowner, or managing agent, on-site outlets and the private parking company are all 'service-providers' who have a legal duty to adhere to the 'Equality Act Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' which became law on 6th April 2011.
11. As evidenced by my rejected appeal the Claimant was made aware that I was traveling with a passenger with protected characteristics under the Equality Act that day and as so would have needed a reasonable adjustment of time. Please see attached appendix xxxx EHRC Statutory CoP with explanatory notes which evidences that the CoP is not just guidance but in fact part of the law itself and that by not allowing a reasonable adjustment of time the service provider would be committing a breach.
12. In accordance with the BPA Code of Practice 18.3 (attached as appendix xxx) Signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so they are easy to see, read and understand. As evidence by appendix XXX photograph taken from inside the vehicle whilst in the bay “45 Minutes free parking” is clearly legible whilst the parking charge risk itself is clearly not, and was not accepted or known on the day, On the basis of this I deny that the signage provided in this car park meets the criteria to form a legally binding contract. I also attach as appendix xxx a copy of the sign in the Parking Eye V’s Beavis & Wardley which was accepted to be adequate for formation of a legally binding contract, for comparison.
13. Further to this section 18.10 of the BPA Code of Practice states “So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists” Whilst my Grandfather is not a blue badge holder as he can no longer drive, he still requires a reasonable adjustment of time due to his limited mobility and issues resulting from his dementia.
14. The ‘Free 45 Minutes Parking’ as offered by the claimant is not the same as ’45 minutes total stay’ timed by hidden cameras at the entrance/exit of the car park which will default to the final image of the car. The claimant has neglected to account for the time spent waiting for a bay close to the entrance, plus helping my Grandad out of the vehicle, returning with bags of shopping, loading the vehicle and then helping him back into the car and with his seat belt and adjustments.
15. Further to this BPA 20.5a states that “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised” The claimant has never evidenced how long the vehicle was actually parked in the car park, nor provided any evidence of the car parked at all, simply provided two photographs of my vehicle traveling in two different directions with no reference to confirm the location arto the point where I initially dismissed the original Parking Charge notice as a scam. Please see attached appendix xxxx photographs used as evidence by the claimant.
16. Whilst the claim is now £331.38 The Claimant has given no explanation as to how they have arrived at the sum of calculated from a starting point of £60 There has been no breakdown provided to explain the additional sum of £136 for ‘debt and damages’ This appears to be a cost with no apparent qualification and an attempt at double recovery. In accordance with The Protection of Freedom Act Paragraph 4 (5) The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Le_Kirk

16. Whilst the claim is now £331.38 The Claimant has given no explanation as to how they have arrived at the sum of ***** calculated from a starting point of £60 .......

Doesn't make sense. Have you missed out something where I put the *****?

HayleyD83

Yes my bad it’s meant to say £331 forget how much they have added onto the original ‘charge’ so I need to get all my papers together and finalize

Coupon-mad

Looking good!

Almost everyone wins at hearing with our help, and even if not, you'll cost them hundreds to get there, and even if you lost, you'd pay only half the sum they are asking, at most, if the Judge is not convinced but is clearly shown why the added 'costs' are false and unrecoverable.

HayleyD83

Thank you so much for all the guidance! I now have a date from the Court as well!! lets hope it goes well on the day.....

beamerguy

HayleyD83 wrote: »

Thank you so much for all the guidance! I now have a date from the Court as well!! lets hope it goes well on the day.....

As everybody has said, a judge will not fall for the mickey mouse attempts by CEL to extort money from you

Just be very wary of any attempts by CEL to contact you, they cannot be trusted. Whatever they might say, always confirm with the court

You'll be OK, just have your costs schedule ready

nosferatu1001

If you clearly challenge them to prove their sums they will discontinue
They do not want to have to explain why they keep sending oout "final" demads, then send to another company, then send another "final" demand. So you state you have no prpoof these sums have ever been paid.
Was the interest calculated on the whole amount on day 0, day 28 (the initial period to pay) and does it include the random addons, as if THEY had been incurred on day 0 as well? (so if after 6 months they sent it to QDR, adding another £60, any interest on that £60 starts from day 0 + 6 months, NOT day 0)

nosferatu1001

Get your costs schedule

Ordinary costs - days loss of leave or pay capped at £95
Mileage
Parking

ENTIRELY SEPARATE SECTION, headed "unreasonable behaviour"
- reference to CPR27.14(2)(g)
- list how they have behaved unreaonsable, including the abuses of process - claiming money to which they are not owed, for example the interest, money they never paid out etc
- then itemise your time at £19 per hour
-> researching defence
- writing defence
- gathering evidnece
- writing WS
and so on.

HayleyD83

Thank you once again to everyone who has helped me from the start of this! I have just dropped my bundle to court and sent a copy to CEL special delivery. I know I’m preaching to the choir here but the amount of stress and inconvenience this has caused me (and everyone in my situation of course) is unreal! Hours spent researching, writing, half a days leave taken off to go to the library, money spent on printing and postage...all for helping my grandad doing his shopping. I really hope something is done soon because it is criminal that these scam artists can get away with what they’re doing it’s tantmount to extortion and I can see why people hand over money rather than go through the rigmour of trying to fight it to be honest!

Coupon-mad

Quite right, and well said. Have you complained jointly with Grandad to his MP?