We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
CEL requesting payment after POPLA unsuccessful appeal
Comments
-
Coupon-mad said:
7. I had the honest belief that their system had accepted my VRM and had no way of knowing their system had failed. This must be unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA') as well as the above regulations, because the trader holds all the cards and refuses to accept retrospective proof of a VRM that they already know (in their system data) belongs to a genuine gym patron. The court is required to carry out a test of fairness (s71 of the CRA) whether it is pleaded by either party, or not. Like the UTCCRs, the CRA contains a list of terms (known as the “grey list”) which will usually be regarded as unfair if they are included in consumer contractsSounds like point 7 here has been written on thhe assumption that my VRM is on the list, so I'm omitting it. My VRM is not on the list that day at all, even though I entered it.I reworded point 3 to:3. I was a bona fide member of XXX’s Gym XXX on the date of alleged parking breach, (Please refer to Exhibit 01 EX-01 & Exhibit 02 (EX-02) of my evidence) and authorised to use the Club’s facilities including the Car Park. As always, I claimed my free parking by entering my VRM into the iPad system at reception. There is no reason why I would not do this as the Claimant hasn’t alleged me of any parking breach at the car park prior to this, despite being a member and attending the gym before the date of the alleged breach.
All your points are very valid and Im sure will land on the good side of the judge. Thanks for your continued support throughout.
0 -
The statement of truth signed by a barrister who should know better is over a year out of date.
This should be brought to the attention of the court.
If an self proclaimed, legally trained and qualified professional cannot get the basics right, it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that he has misunderstood or misinterpreted other legal points.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
The signs are forbidding in nature. There is no offer to park for non-permit holders therefore there can have been no acceptance and therefore no contract can have been formed.
I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
A statement of truth is vital for all legals to understand
As from the 6th April 2020 ....... Sadly the legals who operate within the parking industry are ignorant of this .....Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules bring mandatory changes to statements of truth
https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/gb/articles/2020/march/amendments-to-the-civil-procedure-rules-bring-mandatory-changes-to-statements-of-truth/
0 -
Fruitcake said:The statement of truth signed by a barrister who should know better is over a year out of date.
This should be brought to the attention of the court.
If an self proclaimed, legally trained and qualified professional cannot get the basics right, it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that he has misunderstood or misinterpreted other legal points.The Statement of Truth is dated correctly
0 -
You misunderstand. It is the wording that is out of date. The statement of truth required by the court system was changed over a year ago and should now be much longer. You need to ensure you use the correct one yourself as required by the CPR, and point out the use of the incorrect one by a barrister as I already mentioned.
A search engine of your choice will reveal the correct one to use.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
jyom said:Fruitcake said:The statement of truth signed by a barrister who should know better is over a year out of date.
This should be brought to the attention of the court.
If an self proclaimed, legally trained and qualified professional cannot get the basics right, it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that he has misunderstood or misinterpreted other legal points.The Statement of Truth is dated correctly
That's not the point.
The point is that the mandatory contents of the Statement of Truth were changed on 6th April 2020 and is is rather surprising that the signatory appears not to be aware of this.1 -
Fruitcake said:You misunderstand. It is the wording that is out of date. The statement of truth required by the court system was changed over a year ago and should now be much longer. You need to ensure you use the correct one yourself as required by the CPR, and point out the use of the incorrect one by a barrister as I already mentioned.
A search engine of your choice will reveal the correct one to use.
Now I understand it, mine was already in the correct format, Im thinking I should keep this till the hearing, what do you think?
0 -
jyom said:Fruitcake said:You misunderstand. It is the wording that is out of date. The statement of truth required by the court system was changed over a year ago and should now be much longer. You need to ensure you use the correct one yourself as required by the CPR, and point out the use of the incorrect one by a barrister as I already mentioned.
A search engine of your choice will reveal the correct one to use.
Now I understand it, mine was already in the correct format, Im thinking I should keep this till the hearing, what do you think?
No, I think it should go into your WS. We have seen too often that the judge starts and glosses over things without allowing the defendant to mention things they want to bring up, and then gives their verdict and cuts the 'phone/video feed before the defendant has had the chance to make their claim for costs.
Unless you bring this up immediately 'phone/video contact is made as a preliminary matter, you may miss the opportunity to mention it if it is not in your WS.
You should refer to all the points mentioned by the regulars as well. The most important ids the lack of contract. They have stated they have one, but have not produced it so it is reasonable to believe on the balance of probabilities that they do not have one.
Also mention the fake add on £70 and the no win no fee point, and the incorrect VRM.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
@Coupon-mad Many Thanks for your support and advice. I have included all the points @Fruitcake has mentioned including the incorrect statement of truth, incorrect VRN on the POPLA Appeal, the extra £82 they are charging, their lack of contract etc and all the edits made by @Coupon-mad , I honestly do not think I would have been able to fight up to this stage without the help of the helpful and diligent individuals on this forum. I have now submitted the WS to the court and PPC by email tonight, I'm really looking forward to the hearing, I hope CEL dont request for the hearing to be closed or cancelled when they see my WS.I will definately post progress here. Been a long and tiring day with this, glad I can get to rest to continue the fight another day.
1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards