CEL COURT HEARING NOW BEING HEARD OVER TELEPHONE DUE TO COVID 19 PANDEMIC.

BrownTrout

nosferatu1001 said:

ncw2509 said:

Thanks Zhonguonuren. Thats helpful.  
A letter to DVLA asking for proof of the landowner agreement /copy of the v888. Are you suggestsing they will probably not provide these details,  and I would have to start a moneyclaim, for which they would provide the information I requested in their defence?
Sorry to sound ignorant - this is all very surreal.. 

don't do any of that
the ppc wasn't using a v888 for this, it'll have been kadoe. You can tell that yourself by asking the dvla for who asked your data, when, and by what means. Don't go off half cocked

youre being fed utterly irrelevant to your situation info. No wonder your confused 
your choice now is- appeal or not - if you want to actually have a chance to alter the outcome of YOUR claim that you lost. Decide on that, and decide quickly. 

Well said
IMHO your wasting your time money and effort.

D_P_Dance

IMHO your wasting your  time money and effort.

Many here will disagree

beamerguy

Guys, I spoke to the OP at length yesterday and after explaining the mental state of CEL, it seems the "wimpy kid" was the rep who added little, the judge did not want to know about grace periods, his computer was playing up, he had not looked at the defence regarding abuse of process and in general was dismissive to the OP.   Although, it sounds like he had some understanding of abuse of process as he deducted the £60.

As explained, CEL only won because the judge erred and infact they also lost because after costs for CEL, they might have got a cup of tea out of it.

The OP is going to decide over the weekend whether to pay £150 which is due on the 22nd or spend £120 to appeal.  However their will be a letter of complaint sent about this judge.

I know there are a few of you who will say it's a waste of time ?  Whoever says this, I can only say that I am not you and I will step into places where others fear to tread

D_P_Dance

I will step into places where others fear to tread

I did that once in Johannesburg. 

Tazman1969

It's time more than ever that for the good of everyone start to show the PPC that the public will not be scammed anymore.
Their revenue is drying up with empty car parks and so leading to getting more aggressive with anyone who venture into them, also when this lock down is over they are going to run rampant to clawing back as much money as possible.
Been reading the OP thread with interest and do hope that he is going to appeal.
If he does than if he PM me will discuss something regarding helping out towards the fee, and the others on here who know what they are talking about will 100% be behind them to help.
That's how strongly I feel about it, but will respect the fact it's their fight and decision.

Snakes_Belly

@Tazman1969, There are quite a few who feel quite strongly about this. I know that I would have come over badly if my hearing had been on the telephone. I have a Black Country accent. People make assumptions.

 If the case went to appeal the defendant may need representation. There are regulars on this forum who are capable of representing the OP however they may live a distance away from the court.

It could turn out to be costly and there is the danger that it could escalate as did the Beavis case. It's a difficult decision.

zhonguonuren

My take is that I do not want the OP to have to pay out if it means any financial hardship when there is no guarantee of success.  Of course we are all very interested and some might be more inclined to take a punt. Although I have sued the DVLA, the parking operator, the IPC and am considering a claim against the landowner, in my opinion this needs a major law firm.  If an appeal is not brought properly the decision could have major implications.  If it will be brought properly - fantastic.  

With regards to the DVLA, I am in regular contact and in terms of the V888/3 and KADOE - they are not two separate things - one follows the other.  The same terms have to apply or evidence of a variation.   I would want to see the landowner agreement.  The more victims that challenge the DVLA the better.   It is the DVLA that is failing to take action against the ATAs.  

All my own opinion - obviously feel free to ignore.  

D_P_Dance

My take is that I do not want the OP to have to pay out if it means any financial hardship when there is no guarantee of success. 

No one is suggesting that OP fights this if they cannot afford to, what many/most are saying is that, if he can afford to, he should.  

Several of us feel that your insistence on telling us about your dealings with the DVLA is clouding the issue.  Please believe us when we  say that this has nothing to do with this thread.  

zhonguonuren

There are regulars on this forum who are capable of representing the OP 

They are of course brilliant, but an appeal?  The parking operators would  take great delight in using it against victims if the appeal is not upheld.  I have a case soon which may be via telephone.  I was going to object as I prefer a court hearing, but I may now agree to it (if indeed there is a choice). 

D_P_Dance

  The parking operators would  take great delight in using it against victims if the appeal is not upheld. 

Surely that is a logical fallacy, (argumentum ad ignoratiam). 

For those who are not au fait with logical fallacies here are a few of the most common.

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

 i