Civil Enforcement Limited - Defence

houseofcheshire

Redx said:

I dont think there is any breach , its just a demand letter, but can be added to your evidence in a few months time to show incompetence and more abuse of the process etc

in your posts in this thread you have named the driver, we all know who it was, even if its not in your defence

claimants have been known to screenshot posts from here, think about it !!!!

I haven't given any details in regards to name or claim number?

Redx

houseofcheshire said:

Redx said:

I dont think there is any breach , its just a demand letter, but can be added to your evidence in a few months time to show incompetence and more abuse of the process etc

in your posts in this thread you have named the driver, we all know who it was, even if its not in your defence

claimants have been known to screenshot posts from here, think about it !!!!

I haven't given any details in regards to name or claim number?

doesnt reallly matter if your posts are at odds with your defence

once the CCBC receive your defence they will pass a copy to the claimant, who can then identify you on here, they could screenshot your posts, its been done before

never underestimate how underhand these people are

the DRIVER did what they did on the day

the KEEPER (DEFENDANT) has dealt with subsequent paperwork

saying or typing anything else is foolish and could give you problems in the future, you have been warned

Redx

depends if a driver defence is better than a keeper defence, its that simple

if the judge or the claimant asks you if you were the driver, think about what you would say without committing perjury in court or whilst being recorded during the court case, in person or via eletronic means

any fumbling will infer 51% to 49% that they are correct in their assumption and you would be on the back foot as an inferred driver ( same with "NO COMMENT" )

a driver is a first person witness, nobody else in the room or on the videolink or telephone will be a witness, so an honest witness not hiding behind POFA can sometimes win the day, rather than a reluctant "no comment" keeper

hence why you need to think carefully about your strongest legal arguments, is it POFA, or not POFA ?

POFA is a great argument when the claimant failed it and the keeper and defendant was definitely not the driver

houseofcheshire

@Redx Thank you for that. 
The terms are getting a little confusing. 
So POFA is used when? and where do I read about this?

Also, with the company not issuing me with any photographic evidence or anything at all for that matter do I have to request their proof? or just note it in my defence?

Redx

POFA is mentioned in the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum , and as an 8 year old law is easily googled , but only protects a keeper and not the driver

It also talks about emailing a SAR to the DPO at cel to obtain all your data including photos and documents etc , attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of I D under the GDPR law . I am very surprised that you have not done this yet

If you read the what happens and when you would know that exhibits are exchanged at the WS plus Exhibits plus summary costs assessment stage in a few months time

It's all in there if you look

houseofcheshire

Hiya me again, I have amended my defence points. 
Can somebody confirm that these are adequate please.

"17. The Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago. It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA. 

18. The defendant can confirm that signage is deliberately misleading to ensure that penalty charges can be issued by means of deceit. To elaborate there are multiple Private Carpark Companies within a very small vicinity, and additionally a Council Carpark which the alleged is adjacent to without clear guidance, signage or structures to make the separate organisation apparent to a Driver. The placement appears to be intentional for manipulation.

19. In line with the Protections of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, the defendant is of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist. The Particulars of Claim highlight the time of the alleged violation to be in the evening, past sunset and therefore would contribute to an even greater limitation of visibility."

Thank you 

Le_Kirk

Council Car park which the alleged is adjacent to without clear guidance

Is there a word(s) missing there?

houseofcheshire

@Le_Kirk Indeed there is. Thank you!

Coupon-mad

Carpark

Should be two words.

houseofcheshire

Although I appreciate the grammar corrections, are the points adequate?