Letter before action. CEL

Mrfoxyloxey

These are the paragraphs added to the template at #16.

please comment.

 

1.     The Defendant was the main driver of the vehicle and had no knowledge of any terms and conditions prior to the alleged breach. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge

 

2.     It is denied that the Claimant's signage was capable of creating a legally binding contract. It is denied that there was any contravention of a prominently displayed 'relevant obligation' or that there was any agreement by the driver to pay the Claimant a punitive £100 parking charge over and above the advertised tariff paid. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their compliance with their Trade Body's strict rules set for 'mandatory' signage and for new/changed restrictions in the BPA CoP. This is a code which the Supreme Court held was not just guidance but effectively 'regulatory' and that access to DVLA registered keeper data depends upon full compliance.

 

3.     The Defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking a soon as possible.
In the Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

 

FrankCannon

Looks good to me, but hopefully one of the experts can comment.

Mrfoxyloxey

Thanks. 👍🏼👍🏼

beamerguy

Mrfoxyloxey ..... CEL has not taken into account their fake add-ons and what the courts think about their rubbish.   Plus their reputation in court is like a weasel running up the judge's trouser leg and biting him ?
It's probably because they discontinue so often and waste the courts time

Redx

Mrfoxyloxey said:

Coupon-mad said:

Received county court letter on the 20th March,

Amazing!  Today is only 4th...

What's the ISSUE DATE of the claim and on what date (exactly) did you do the AOS?

You seem to have missed the new template defence (search the forum) and not read today's CEL one where I added some words about Wonga-man to someone's witness statement, that you can add to the template defence.

I'm looking for the CEL witness statement you refer to.. Could you help please?

I think she was referring to wonga guy Wilson, and this thread may well be the one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5923283/cel-pcn-help-required/p2

Mrfoxyloxey

That's great thanks. Read it through and will add a couple of extra point Coupon-Mad mentioned. 

Coupon-mad

Yes, well found Redx, I could not find it again! 

Add in a version of these words about Scott Wilson:


x  Contrary to all the pre-action protocol and Code of Practice rules, as well as with flagrant disregard to the overriding objective and the CPRs, the Claimant's abject failure to provide any information or photographic evidence in pre- and post-action letters and notices - yet filing a spurious claim when they know the tariff was paid during the parking session - is wholly unreasonable, but perhaps not unexpected, given the meritless claim was filed by Scott Wilson 'Head of Legal and Compliance at Creative Car Park Ltd' but previously boasting in his LinkedIn profile of being 'Commercial and Legal Manager' at Wonga.com.

Mrfoxyloxey

Thanks Coupon-mad and everyone else. I'll this to the defence:

The defendant has filed a spurious claim when they know the allday tariff was paid during the parking session - is wholly unreasonable, but perhaps not unexpected, given the meritless claim was filed by Scott Wilson 'Head of Legal and Compliance at Creative Car Park Ltd' but previously boasting in his LinkedIn profile of being 'Commercial and Legal Manager' at Wonga.com.

I'm hoping to get this scanned tomorrow at work, so please let me know if theres anything else.

Cheers

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me and I really think the wonga.com sentence needs to go into all CEL defences and WS from now on, if only to tip the Judge off that he/she miiiight just be dealing with chancers, and to stay alert.

Mrfoxyloxey

The defendant has filed a spurious claim!! I mean claimant.