County Court Claim Received - Daughter was the Driver

beamerguy

Old_Bird_65 ....... Given some of the cases we are seeing, I don't think that it's a problem who the driver is. Judges are more looking into contracts, signage and how valid the claim is.  Since the spankings of BWLegal, VCS, Gladstones and QDR for adding fake amounts, judges are looking for the quickest and easiest way to dismass a claim. I guess it's because they don't want a repeat of BWLegal etc appealing which of course was timewasting for the courts . 

That's not to say that judges will not use abuse of process and that is why everyone should shout abuse of process (the fake add-ons) in their offence

Old_Bird_65

So, do you reckon it's worth trying to argue about signage, whilst not mentioning the Beavis case? I feel I may not have a leg to stand on on that point and if the court dismiss this, they might be inclined to then dismiss the points for which I have more evidence. 

KeithP

On those signs you have shown us the £100 is far from prominent.
It's the Beavis case that says the charge must be prominent on the signs.

Compare your car park sign with the Beavis sign.

Old_Bird_65

Thanks beamerguy, my head is spinning with all of this! I've spent nearly all day reading the enormous witness statement from CEL, interspersed with investigating past cases, Acts of Parliament and people's differing opinions, and I'm more confused than when I started! From what I can tell, the signs in this car park do conform to BPA's conditions (apart from the regulation that a disabled driver needs to be able to read the detail from their car, which doesn't affect me), and also with the Consumer Rights Act. I'm not sure there's any other angle to come from considering it looks like the Beavis case is off limits for me

Old_Bird_65

Ah! Yes, you have a point there, KeithP...
When i was writing my defence letter, I rather blindly copy and pasted the Beavis paragraphs and I have to admit that having learned a little more about the case since, I still don't really understand the relevance to me as the argument seems to be more related to whether the fee they were charging was a penalty or a charge, rather than how large the writing was. So sorry for my ignorance, but could you explain a little what grounds I have for complaining about the size of the fee on the sign? 

Half_way

[quote] understand the PPCs now have the power to claim against the Keeper if the identity of the driver hasn't been revealed[/quote]

Correct in that the PPCs can go for the registered keeper, however that is only true if the parking company has complied with the protection of freedoms act.

My understanding of it also points that you should be able to name the driver at anytime - even if a letter before action/letter of claim has been issued ( correct me if i'm wrong)

That CEL sign is a complete and utter dogs dinner....

"payment must be made within 10 minutes"

"you must (a) make payment with 2 hours and 30 minutes"

Theres also an invite to e-mail a so called data protection officer ( orificer?) whilst most people have access to email, some - usually the older  generation don't ( discriminatory) - could go on for hours /pages pulling the sign apart

edite - why wont the quote marks work??? [quote] [/quote]??

beamerguy

Old_Bird_65 said:

Thanks beamerguy, my head is spinning with all of this! I've spent nearly all day reading the enormous witness statement from CEL, interspersed with investigating past cases, Acts of Parliament and people's differing opinions, and I'm more confused than when I started! From what I can tell, the signs in this car park do conform to BPA's conditions (apart from the regulation that a disabled driver needs to be able to read the detail from their car, which doesn't affect me), and also with the Consumer Rights Act. I'm not sure there's any other angle to come from considering it looks like the Beavis case is off limits for me

We understand it's mind blowing. You need to sit down and imagine you are a judge when reading their WS.
Pull it apart bit by bit ..... let us know what you think is wrong.  

Coupon-mad

I've spent nearly all day reading the enormous witness statement from CEL,

Why?  You are really overthinking this.

It's a template pile of drivel, should take about an hour to skim-read (surely you were expecting this stage and that exact pile of cut & paste stuff, as seen before in other threads)?  They will almost certainly discontinue anyway when they see a decent WS & evidence email from you.

Quite probably the NTK was not POFA compliant but surely you checked that back in 2019 when you first posted about this?  So if it wasn't compliant (and the NEWBIES thread has always told everyone how to check a NTK against the POFA - dead easy) then you already KNOW that they can't hold a keeper liable...

could you explain a little what grounds I have for complaining about the size of the fee on the sign? 

Thus is basic stuff, think about it.  Compare it to the Beavis case sign...(Google images have it).

Have you finished your WS & evidence yet, copied from other recent threads?

Old_Bird_65

You're right Coupon-mad... I probably am over-thinking it! (and am a self-confessed perfectionist who hates making mistakes!)
I'll try and keep calm and make some progress today which I'll hopefully post here a bit later.

Old_Bird_65

Thanks Beamerguy for your comments.... so glad to hear you thought CEL's sign was a dog's dinner! I've taken advantage of that!
On your question about my NTK Coupon-Mad, I've always been unsure whether that's actually what it was because it was basically a stiff demand for payment of the alleged overdue PCN I never received, with most of the details you would expect to see on an NTK missing. I've only noticed in the last day or so that POPLA referred to it as an NTK, so now I've pulled out all the stops on how that doesn't comply.

I've now done my draft WS - having read that you should only include facts and no opinion I'm nervous that there's a lot I still need to remove, although I've culled a lot, mainly because it was quite repetitive. If you wouldn't mind having a look at my draft and giving some feedback, that would be great!Thanks so much everyone for all your input! I'll paste it into the next box...