CEL County Court Claim Defence

Coupon-mad

Remove #11, #12, #15 and #16 as they add nothing.

You should be clearly stating 'The Defendant was not the driver as a company cannot be 'the driver'.  If you did include a line as clear as that, I missed it!

And add more here about how you know they were not, such as 'it's a retail park' and/or 'it was not in working hours' (or whatever).

3. I assert that *********** are the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I can confirm that an employee of the Defendant company was the driver of the vehicle, however, the driver was not on company business nor in anyway acting ‘on behalf of’ the Defendant company.

Read the threads by @keypulse (near the end of his thread, he posted all his documents that he succeeded with) and by the person with a short name whose username starts with 'g' who has been asking every question known to man and woman about WS & evidence and COSTS ASSESSMENT stage. 

You can learn from those answers and save our time and yours.

ActiveSec

My office just took a call from CEL asking for a call back to see if we can come to a mutually agreeable outcome before going to court. 
Do you think it is even worth calling them back to see what they have to say?

Coupon-mad

Nope. simple as that.  Why are they calling your office?  Tell them to stop.

ActiveSec

the £25 court fee is due very soon otherwise case gets struck out.

Coupon-mad

OK, but don't speak to them about settling and paying them anything.

A company cannot be 'the driver' and if the driver wasn't on company business/acting on behalf of the company that day then the company has no liability under any twist of any law.

ActiveSec

Letter received from HM Courts dated 14th August 2020 and received 19th August 2020 saying case struck out as claimant had not paid the required hearing fee.

Letter received from CEL dated 17th August 2020 and received 19th August 2020 saying they've decided to discontinue proceedings due to the ongoing situation with Covid-19.

Thank you to everyone for their help!

Le_Kirk

A win no matter how it was achieved.

beamerguy

ActiveSec said:

Letter received from HM Courts dated 14th August 2020 and received 19th August 2020 saying case struck out as claimant had not paid the required hearing fee.

Letter received from CEL dated 17th August 2020 and received 19th August 2020 saying they've decided to discontinue proceedings due to the ongoing situation with Covid-19.

Thank you to everyone for their help!

That's good news ......... the court strikes out the claim 3 days before CEL discontinue because of covid ???

What a CEL plonker Rodney ...... 

Coupon-mad

ActiveSec said:

Letter received from HM Courts dated 14th August 2020 and received 19th August 2020 saying case struck out as claimant had not paid the required hearing fee.

Letter received from CEL dated 17th August 2020 and received 19th August 2020 saying they've decided to discontinue proceedings due to the ongoing situation with Covid-19.

Thank you to everyone for their help!

I am so glad you came back now and congrats on the win.  ANOTHER CEL ONE BITES THE DUST!]

Please now make a real difference!  Don't forget, no letting this chance slip!

A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER for the company employees and all your family (please, the more responses the better).

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters, and MUST GO because that is unfair and illegal.

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!

D_P_Dance

They have wasted your time, now waste some of theirs.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/