CEL PCN Help Required.

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

x The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with ANPR images of the vehicle questioning the legitimacy of the information supplied by the Claimant. Instead they

Replace with this as YOU MUST tell the Judge you did pay for the parking time & can prove it!:

x The Claimant has failed to provide the Defendant with any photographs whatsoever from the alleged parking event; not of the car, nor the sign and alleged contractual terms, nor the pay & display ticket ('PDT') machine.  Even the usual 'in/out' ANPR images were absent from their Notice to Keeper, which it is averred did not comply with the strict mandatory requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the POFA, including but not limited to paragraph 9 of that statute.   The lack of photographic evidence to date has significantly impeded the Defendant's opportunity to understand the case against him, and it is averred that this Claimant cannot hold this registered keeper liable due to the absence of a compliant NTK; absence of any breach of a 'relevant obligation'; and absence of 'adequate notice' of the onerous parking charge.

x  The Defendant has the PDT for the car from that night, and will produce it in evidence to show that £1 was paid for the parking session, in good faith, before the vehicle left the premises.  This Defendant is now having to guess for the purposes of this defence, that the Claimant is trying to suggest that, by paying for the PDT (the £1 blanket tariff covering from 18:00 - Midnight) an hour after arrival but before leaving well before midnight, that the driver has agreed to also pay £100 penalty - a sum that was completely illegible in the dark.  The driver and passenger could not see any terms, let alone a PDT machine on arrival, because the machines are so tucked up out the way in a dark unlit corner at this site, with no large arrows pointing to them or anything to draw attention to any parking management terms (this is in breach of the BPA CoP rules about 'operating in hours of darkness'). 

x  Contrary to all the pre-action protocol and Code of Practice rules, as well as with flagrant disregard to the overriding objective and the CPRs, the Claimant's abject failure to provide any information or photographic evidence in pre- and post-action letters and notices - yet filing a spurious claim when they know the tariff was paid during the parking session - is wholly unreasonable, but perhaps not unexpected, given the meritless claim was filed by Scott Wilson 'Head of Legal and Compliance at Creative Car Park Ltd' but previously boasting in his LinkedIn profile of being 'Commercial and Legal Manager' at Wonga.com.

mattybill

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this:

x The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with ANPR images of the vehicle questioning the legitimacy of the information supplied by the Claimant. Instead they

Replace with this as YOU MUST tell the Judge you did pay for the parking time & can prove it!:

x The Claimant has failed to provide the Defendant with any photographs whatsoever from the alleged parking event; not of the car, nor the sign and alleged contractual terms, nor the pay & display ticket ('PDT') machine.  Even the usual 'in/out' ANPR images were absent from their Notice to Keeper, which it is averred did not comply with the strict mandatory requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the POFA, including but not limited to paragraph 9 of that statute.   The lack of photographic evidence to date has significantly impeded the Defendant's opportunity to understand the case against him, and it is averred that this Claimant cannot hold this registered keeper liable due to the absence of a compliant NTK; absence of any breach of a 'relevant obligation'; and absence of 'adequate notice' of the onerous parking charge.

x  The Defendant has the PDT for the car from that night, and will produce it in evidence to show that £1 was paid for the parking session, in good faith, before the vehicle left the premises.  This Defendant is now having to guess for the purposes of this defence, that the Claimant is trying to suggest that, by paying for the PDT (the £1 blanket tariff covering from 18:00 - Midnight) an hour after arrival but before leaving well before midnight, that the driver has agreed to also pay £100 penalty - a sum that was completely illegible in the dark.  The driver and passenger could not see any terms, let alone a PDT machine on arrival, because the machines are so tucked up out the way in a dark unlit corner at this site, with no large arrows pointing to them or anything to draw attention to any parking management terms (this is in breach of the BPA CoP rules about 'operating in hours of darkness'). 

x  Contrary to all the pre-action protocol and Code of Practice rules, as well as with flagrant disregard to the overriding objective and the CPRs, the Claimant's abject failure to provide any information or photographic evidence in pre- and post-action letters and notices - yet filing a spurious claim when they know the tariff was paid during the parking session - is wholly unreasonable, but perhaps not unexpected, given the meritless claim was filed by Scott Wilson 'Head of Legal and Compliance at Creative Car Park Ltd' but previously boasting in his LinkedIn profile of being 'Commercial and Legal Manager' at Wonga.com.

That is brilliant, you put it perfectly into the words. Thank you so much for taking the time to do so! With that added that should hopefully conclude my defence. I shall get it printed and then the appendixes added and sent off. I shall keep you updated.
Thanks again! 

Coupon-mad

We need to use that final line in all CEL cases...Judges need to read this...

filing a spurious claim is wholly unreasonable, but perhaps not unexpected, given the meritless claim was filed by Scott Wilson 'Head of Legal and Compliance at Creative Car Park Ltd' but previously boasting in his LinkedIn profile of being 'Commercial and Legal Manager' at Wonga.com.

mattybill

Afternoon Everyone! Hope you're all well! Just a little update, I wanted to make sure it's the right thing to do.
Having transferred the case to my local county court, I've received a N159 response form and a General Form of Judgement or Order.
Asking whether:
A - I agree that the claim be dealt with on the papers alone 
or
B - I do not agree that the claim be dealt with on the papers alone
Am I right in going for option B and having a hearing for the case? Also I have to send CEL a copy of this form, will they send me a copy so I get to see what they say? The N159 needs to be sent to court by 12th August so I wasn't sure whether it's worth waiting to see what they send (if at all anything).

Thanks again 

Redx

Read the telephone hearings thread by coupon mad posted a few months ago , plus other recent court case threads, whilst you can ask for a face to face hearing , most current cases are by video link , or telephone , or on papers due to covid , so a judge may make those observations and may not grant what you are asking for

Covid changes are in all walks of life , so keep up with developments , the court service is so far behind that some Nightingale courts are being implemented

Coupon-mad

This is asked once a week.  Wording to use is in the telephone hearings thread, updated last month.

mattybill

Hey guys, sorry this form is a bit out of the blue. I already submitted my directions questionnaire weeks ago, going by the thread it stated after that the next form I would receive would be the Notice of Allocation (which i'm yet to receive). There's no boxes for writing on this N159 form it is literally 3 tick boxes and sign and date. Nothing mentioning about how the hearing will take place if selected. 
I'm a little bit cautious of not agreeing to be dealt with papers alone as one of the points on the other letter is:
"IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The district judge proposes to dispose of the claim without a hearing - that is on papers alone. The parties must complete the Form N159 Response which is attached to this order and return it to the court". -
There is no box to tell the Judge why i'm declining to have it done on papers alone.

Redx

As I clearly stated earlier , covid has changed the system and you haven't kept up , you are reacting instead of researching and expecting and knowing what to do. Be proactive and not reactive

The paperwork may say that you can write an email to the court and give your reasons why you do not wish it to be on papers , if you don't then it will be on papers. You need to start a dialogue with the court about your wishes , meeting their deadlines and submitting your WS plus Exhibits plus summary costs assessment by the court imposed deadline , to both the court and the claimant

You appear to have the interim questionnaire , only you can decide if paperwork alone will win it , if not then it's take it further using the second option. Bearing in mind that due to covid all courts prefer to hear cases on papers alone , not just yours , as many as possible

This is what everyone else is doing in their court case threads , so read a few and learn from them , same as I am doing even though I haven't got a court case. You seem to have been asleep for the last few months , so get a grip , you are dealing with your court , this is their first salvo , so decide what you want based on my replies and those other court case threads , plus the coupon mad telephone hearings thread that you don't appear to have read yet we keep telling you to read !!

Time to smell the coffee , sup a few mugs and get busy

Hope that explains it ?

Ps , if you don't want papers alone you tick the other option , but taking that route means that the other options I gave you will come into play in the next court letter

Coupon-mad

It's not out of the blue - discussed a lot and the words to refuse it were posted back in June.  The TELEPHONE HEARINGS thread covers all COVID-related updates.  You just put it in the email...

KeithP

On the N159 tick boxes B and C.

And as it says, you must send a copy to the Claimant.