CEL Claim

TutorMark

[FONT=&quot]How about this Coupon-mad:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date at [location]. There is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Yes you can use all of that albeit the signage stuff is unnecessary repetition of what you already have said about it, really, so prune that down.

I am uncomfortable that you know that no PD machine ticket was purchased but you haven't said that in defence nor explained why?

TutorMark

Coupon-mad, the driver assumed private parking companies isn’t able to enforce the charge.

Redx

In that case the driver needs to research the name Barry Beavis who lost 3 times against parking eye, or the Indigo win against the nurses etc at UHW hospital case, never mind all the cases appearing daily up and down England and Wales etc

Very foolish assumption and a potentially costly mistake

I have the view that all invoices may be enforceable and plan my world accordingly on the basis that a little bit of knowledge and prevention is better than trying to fix it later when something hits the fan

Tell the driver to read this forum daily where a new case or several cases appear daily and they may have a different opinion, like the regulars here do, it's a daily occurrence for us

The_Deep

I have the view that all invoices may be enforceable

I take the opposite view. There are a lot of scammers out there

Redx

I agree

That's why I take steps to make an informed decision and not make assumptions about any emails, letters and any invoices, which is also why I said the word "may", it's weed out the grain from the chaff

I have no idea why people believe in urban myths when 2 minutes on Google reveals the true nature and also debunks the urban myths

The ignorance on a topic perpetuates the topic

The driver caused this situation by believing fake news and falsehoods were true

Coupon-mad

TutorMark wrote: »

Coupon-mad, the driver assumed private parking companies isn’t able to enforce the charge.

What a stupid thing to do, if you man they deliberately parked without paying... absolutely the opposite of what this forum is all about.

People like that actively cause PPCs to exist and it's really frustrating to hear about that, for people who should simply pay a quid or so to park, as we all would if we used a PDT machine car park.

I have no idea how you will get around that at your hearing, I must admit, if the Judge asks you directly. The defence does read as if you were holding something back which is why I asked. I wonder if the Judge will think the same.

TutorMark

Thank you Redx, Deep and Coupon-mad. The driver have been foolish, and I am sure this claim will be a wake up call to him/her.