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

ncw2509

Thanks Coupon-Mad 
The signage was not at all prominent, apart from the "2 hour free parking" in large black font.  The rest of the T&C's were greyed out  in much smaller font and it was necessary to park up and exit the vehicle before being able to view these details. I have evidenced photographs of these in my WS which I will refer to .. Interestingly, their photographs of the signage which were taken a few years before the event, have been blown up for maximum effect.
The overstay of 12 minutes is within the grace periods which I am relying on as per the COP relevant at the time of the parking event.
I did ask for landowner authority to be provided in the defense sent to CEL, but nothing ever materialised. They state in their WS (by Scott Wilson -Barrister , Head of Legal and Compliance)  that at all material times, they were authorised to manage the car park in question.
I have already sent in a costs assessment for consideration.
One last thing - if I lose, can I appeal?

 

D_P_Dance

 don't p*ss the Court off,

I do not see why not.

Redx

You can ask for leave to appeal , the judge may refuse the request , or may grant it

If you did appeal I believe it costs you money and has to be on points of law , procedural errors etc , very complicated and not cheap , so careful consideration given the costs involved over effectively trivial matters

Beavis appealed to the court of appeal and lost , he also appealed to the Supreme court , lost again

Pick your battles carefully and don't p*** the court and judge off , get the bundle to the lay rep , by email if necessary , follow what fruitcake and others have told you. For all you know the judge may lay into the claimant , rubbish their case and find in your favour with hardly a word spoken by you or your lay rep

Then the claimant may ask for leave to appeal

zhonguonuren

Please do not disregard the importance of the landowner agreement.  Please say to the judge why is it not enclosed/why has it not been shown to you by now.  My landowner agreement (received after a year of asking) clearly shows that the parking operator was not acting with landowner’s authority.  There is a reason why these are not being shown to us. Without it, the claimant cannot prove it has a legal right to bring a claim.  

Wishing you the very best of luck.  Zhong

zhonguonuren

If it were my case (and it isn’t so feel free to ignore) I would say to the Judge - Sir/Madam, I have been asking for a copy of the landowner’s agreement and Mr Wilson has failed to provide it.  I can see no proof that his company had the authority to bring a claim against me - unless I am missing it and the court has been supplied with a copy????

For info and I don’t want to teach my grandma to suck eggs but in court I always feel that I have lost the case and the judge is dismissing what I am saying.  Please do not let this bother you as long as you are polite and press the point - and I always try to repeat my killer points a few times (very politely of course!) 

henrik777

D_P_Dance said:

 don't p*ss the Court off,

I do not see why not.

Well they're the ones making the decision. If it's a close decision that can tip the balance.

Umkomaas

henrik777 said:

D_P_Dance said:

 don't p*ss the Court off,

I do not see why not.

Well they're the ones making the decision. If it's a close decision that can tip the balance.

DPD would then just encourage the defendant to 'simply engage a QC' to represent an appeal, and if necessary, take it all the way to The Supreme Court. Easy peasy when you've got £zillions burning a hole in your off-shore accounts. 😱 

D_P_Dance

Well UMKO I am where i am because I made the best of the hand life dealt me.  

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

Well UMKO I am where i am because I made the best of the hand life dealt me.  

Ek ook. 😊

Coupon-mad

Many CEL car parks have contracts signed with a completely different firm, Creative Car Parks Ltd and have been known to have been exposed by a Judge to have (allegedly) tried to cover that up!  

Read this report from bargepole re Simon Clay v CEL (yes, he sued THEM!) and the trancript from 31.5.18:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zdziw1ilojpf3aw/1042950_Simon%20Clay%20v%20Civil%20Enforcement%20Ltd%20and%20Fusion%20Lifestyle_Judgment%20Approved.pdf?dl=0

Feb 2018 first update from bargepole:

An update on this adjourned case.  CEL filed and served a copy of the contract, which is between Creative and Fusion Lifestyle, dated 8 April 2013.  Appended at the end is a further Supply of Services contract between Creative and CEL, for which the date cannot be determined, as the signature block is redacted. This purports to grant authority for CEL to carry out enforcement on behalf of Creative.

 However, it states, at 3.3.8, that CEL must “be a member of either the British Parking Association or the Independent Parking Committee”. The IPC did not come into existence until October 2013, some six months after the Fusion contract was executed. It is therefore impossible for the delegation of authority to enforce, to have been in existence at that time.

We are, therefore, challenging the provenance of this document, and have indicated to the Court that the four Claimants will pursue their claims at the adjourned hearing on 31 May.

 **********************************************************

31.5.18

Final Update on this one.

The adjourned hearing was listed for today, at High Wycombe, before District Judge Jones.

A few days earlier, CEL had sent a letter to the Claimants, stating that they considered they had provided adequate evidence of landowner authority, and that it was unreasonable for us to maintain the claim. They had attached a Schedule of Costs incurred by their barrister, Mr Ritchie, totalling over £6,000.  This tactic worked with three of the Claimants, who were not prepared to take the risk, and they filed a Notice of Discontinuance. However the first Claimant, Mr C, decided to fight on, so we all turned up to court, where Mr Ritchie was the advocate for the Defendants.

 

The only issue to be decided, was whether CEL had provided sufficient evidence of their authority to operate, as ordered by the previous Judge.  Mr Ritchie claimed that they only needed to rely on the contract between Creative and CEL, which said that Creative may assign the benefits of the agreement to CEL, or any other company. He also argued that the fact that they had been operating there for some 4 years meant that, on BoP, they did have authority, and their name was on the signs.

 

Our case was that while there was evidence of a contract between the landowner and Creative, there was no evidence that enforcement had been delegated to CEL. The other contract between Creative and CEL was blasted by the Judge due to over-redaction, crucially the date, and it was evidence of nothing at all. Mr Ritchie conceded that he wasn’t relying on it, and he thought the date was probably post the parking event anyway.

 

On the question of quantum, Ritchie argued that as CEL hadn’t shared the RK data with any third parties (unlike Vidal-Hall and Halliday), any distress caused could only be minimal or non-existent. We said that he had been bombarded with demands for payment for over a year.  The Claim was awarded, although DJ Jones reduced the £250 claim to £200 + filing and hearing fees, total £250, which he considered reasonable. Mr C had not brought any evidence of lost earnings, so no order as to costs.