County Court Claim Received - Daughter was the Driver

Old_Bird_65

Hi, I have my court date (18th March) for my fight against Civil Enforcement and am putting my Witness Statement together. I notice on the newbies feed it says to include 'a copy of the Beavis case sign as a comparison to show how awful the small print sign was in yours case', but I'm struggling to find a photo to include. Could anyone point me in the right direction please?

Also, when I received C.E.L.'s Witness Statement (plus a duplicate copy??), they made me an offer to settle at less than half of the fee they're claiming. Do you think this could be an indication that they know they'll lose, so may abandon??

Thanks for your assistance!

Old_Bird_65

I'm ploughing through C.E.L's Witness Statement which insists that in the Beavis case, the Supreme Court found that Parking Eye didn't contravene the 1999 Regulations and had the right to enforce a contract with Beavis?? I'm confused! 

KeithP

Old_Bird_65 said:

I notice on the newbies feed it says to include 'a copy of the Beavis case sign as a comparison to show how awful the small print sign was in yours case', but I'm struggling to find a photo to include. Could anyone point me in the right direction please?

Really??

I just stuck your words - Beavis case sign - into google and found several pictures.

Old_Bird_65

Hi Keith,
Thanks for your reply. I did the same but the pictures were all so varied I didn't want to guess which were the actual signs.  Anyway, I'm now in the process of scrubbing all reference to the Beavis case out of my statement as CEL are using it against me and I found on another thread here that it could be to my detriment to bring that up. I'm now trying to find evidence elsewhere that we didn't enter a legally binding contract

Half_way

The beavis case cuts both ways and can be immensely useful at times those who fall victims to a private parking company.
As can the protection of freedoms act, or the premier was not the driver, and the parking company doesn't comply with POFA then there can be no keeper liability.
That is why its important not to name the driver, never use terms such as I drove, she drove, he drove, a friend, brother, sister, daughter, mother, father.etc that can give a hint as to the drivers ID

Old_Bird_65

I'm just wondering... does it matter if my Witness Statement bears little resemblence to my Statement of Defence? Some of points I put into my defence were details I'd found on this site or which other forum members had suggested I include just to add extra weight to my case. My main issues are the fact that their phone system was faulty and didn't process our payment and also that they didn't send a PCN but jumped directly to an NTK which didn't conform to BPA requirements. I'd like to think I have enough evidence to back up my argument without cutting and pasting a lot of the popular arguments.
Any thoughts over this?
Thanks again!

Old_Bird_65

Sorry Half_way, I only just refreshed my page and saw your comment...

Yes, I kicked myself when I realised I shouldn't have revealed who was driving, but I didn't come onto this site until after I'd made my initial appeal. However, I understand the PPCs now have the power to claim against the Keeper if the identity of the driver hasn't been revealed, so I guess I would still have had to deal with it anyway   

Redx

it should back up and expand on any defence points , be about what happened if possible , what you knew at the time and what you have found out since , plus expand on rubbishing the POC issued in the claim by the claimant , plus any issues with the NTK, or pcn , , signage , abuse of process , your costs schedule etc, so reference exhibits with your initials/number (abc/001 etc) , your costs schedule can be one of them , the abuse of process another

so no its nothing like the defence , nor replicates it , so not a copy of it

KeithP

In my opinion you must criticise the signs. It is the signs that form the basis of any contract. Without any contract there can be no breach of contract.

Were the signs where you parked as clear as this?...



That's the Beavis sign.

Old_Bird_65

Hmm... yes, I think they were!... hence the reason I'm wondering if I should drop that part of the argument