CEL taking my wife to court

simonsmart111

I'll ensure that she checks, agrees and approves, including signing, everything, and ensure that any contact will be made by her.

(Would it be problematic if the email to the court were to come from my personal email address?)

Thanks again

KeithP

simonsmart111 wrote: »

(Would it be problematic if the email to the court were to come from my personal email address?)

No that's not really a problem at this stage, but why not set up an anonymous gmail email address specifically for this 'project'?

Five minutes work - if that.

Coupon-mad

simonsmart111 wrote: »

Thank you KeithP, will look over and probably remove para 6.

Do you understand why? It's because we CANNOT successfully argue 'no loss' v a PPC.

Change it to this:

6. The vehicle in question was recorded as being at the premises for a total of 19 minutes. [STRIKE]The total sum being claimed is not reflective of any genuine loss to the land owner. Furthermore, the car park requires no payment for use, so the claimed amount cannot truly reflect any loss sustained.[/STRIKE] The Defendant does not believe this was an occasion when she was driving, and believes it was a brief incident when a family member was driving and stopped for a few minutes due to a mechanical emergency, in the only safe place, being an empty pub car park.

6.1. The Defendant can confirm that, around this time, an emergency dashboard light was prone to coming on suddenly and there was at least one occasion where various family member drivers had to stop in the nearest suitable place, for safety, to allow the engine to cool. This intermittent fault was later repaired. The pub location stated is not familiar to the Defendant, who avers that the driver did not leave the car, nor was it abandoned, nor parked in a bay and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is fully distinguished in all facts.

...and you can't state this in #4, obviously, as you didn't 'previously' mention Beavis!

This differs from the previously stated Beavis v Parking Eye case, where signage was clearly displayed.

You also need to object to more than just the added £60, as I bet the claim is for more than double the £100 PCN and probably suggests 'legal fees' as well? None of those can be recovered.

And, you need to add the 'no landowner authority' defence point seen in all the CEL examples you care to search for and read. It seems to be missing from your draft.

simonsmart111

Thank you again.

Makes sense as to why we can't argue 'no loss'. Common sense suggests that no loss can be incurred on a free car park, but I'm sure they'd argue the case if they're given the chance!

I've amended point 6.1 as was suggested.

I've added to point 5 the full amount in addition to the £100 PCN rather than just the £50 'legal costs' - there is an amount claimed of over £190, plus court + legal 'fees'.

I have added an extra 'point' after 6 stating the following: '7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.'
(Copied from one of BargePole's posts)

Apart from that. hopefully we're good to get this sent in tomorrow morning and await further contact from CEL/court!

Coupon-mad

Makes sense as to why we can't argue 'no loss'. Common sense suggests that no loss can be incurred on a free car park, but I'm sure they'd argue the case if they're given the chance!

No they wouldn't. The Beavis case kills that argument, but supports the view that a parking firm can charge a high sum for parking, under contractual agreement - not by arguing that they made a 'loss' (and you can't argue that way either).

Apart from that. hopefully we're good to get this sent in tomorrow morning and await further contact from CEL/court!

OK great.

simonsmart111

Update time.

Defence was submitted on time via email.

We received a 'acknowledgement of your defence' which was dated 23 April 2019.
This advised that the claimant must contact the court within 28 days, or the claim will be stayed.

5 Weeks passed, but on 31st May 2019 we received a 'Notice of proposed allocation to the Small Claims Court', dated 29th May 2019.
This included a covering letter, and a few pages to fill in and return by Mid-June.

So, would it be advisable to agree to a Small Claims Court Mediation Service? If so, I'll just fill out and return the forms. If not, I presume it would default to an official court hearing?

Finally, the dates that I provided at the beginning of this post show a gap of 37 days. The original letter said that there was a 28 day limit. Would the 9 days reflect processing times from the CCBC, or could we dispute the dates and get the case dropped?!

Thanks in advance for further guidance!

waamo

Mediation is utterly pointless. Read the forms carefully to see what to do. Never assume anything.

BrownTrout

Dont bother with mediation

Quentin

No mileage for you over the gap between submitting your defence and receiving the allocation notice

BrownTrout

Be prepared for a threatening letter from CEL saying they will have to recover extra costs from you should this go to a hearing . Ignore it