Ccj and defence

Redx

If it was night time , then I wouldn't used daytime images in your bundle , they are useful on here for our clarity

Use stills from the dash cam footage , use internet location screenshots to prove it was number 32 , so parked right outside the shop and not in their monitored area , add that the private road has parking places outside all the shops , to service those shops , so typical of these places etc nothing to alert you to any arrangements and you weren't visiting 34 onwards anyway , plus it appears to be a council side road same as thousands of others

The shops rely on the spaces , the spaces rely on the shops

Looks to be rain on the dash cam footage , so add poor weather conditions etc

Fruitcake

A screenshot of this web page might be better as proof of address as it has an image of the restaurant on it.

PIZZA EXPRESS, Bramhall - 32 Woodford Rd - Restaurant Reviews, Photos & Phone Number - Tripadvisor


With regards to this,

"It is my understanding that the contract between the Landowner and the company appointed to manage this site is with a company called "Creative Parking."  If this is the case, then the Claimant has no authority to litigate on their behalf.  The Claimant is put to strict proof."

Creative Parking is a trading name of CEL. It is only worth mentioning if the name of the parking operator that appears on the signs is Creative Parking, or Starpark, which is another of their trading names and was on the signs that were removed.
If that is the case, then state that CEL is a stranger to the contract formed by signage at the site, and show a photo' of a sign with the different name.

If the signs say CEL, then I don't think there is any point in mentioning anything about Creative Parking, unless you have seen a landowner contract with that name on it.


You mention signs being removed on instruction from the council. You should refer to lack of Advertising Consent, not Planning Permission.

Fruitcake

Use the night-time pictures to show what the site looked like when you were there in Dec 2019, to show the judge how hard it would have been for you to see the signs, especially as it was busy and you were concentrating on where you were going. 
If the signs had been adequate, they would have stood out and you would have seen them, irrespective of the circumstances.

Use daytime shots to show the signs, IF they say Creative Parking or Starpark, otherwise leave them out and make the claimant prove the signs were adequate.

Use daytime GSV shots to show Pizza Express is (was) next to number 34.

1505grandad

Apologies if already mentioned in this thread  -  can you explain the following in your WS?:-

"It is my understanding that the contract between the Landowner and the company appointed to manage this site is with a company called "Creative Parking.""

Is the actual name of the ppc managing the site stated on the signs you are using as evidence  -  i.e.

"Exhibit CD3 – Photo of signage close."

Fruitcake

1505grandad said:

Apologies if already mentioned in this thread  -  can you explain the following in your WS?:-

"It is my understanding that the contract between the Landowner and the company appointed to manage this site is with a company called "Creative Parking.""

Is the actual name of the ppc managing the site stated on the signs you are using as evidence  -  i.e.

"Exhibit CD3 – Photo of signage close."

That is what I was trying to ask as well.

If the signs say CEL, then forget it.
If the signs say Creative Parking, or Starpark, then mention it.

The OP mentioned they obtained information from one of the shop managers, so it is possible they have been told about a parking contract that is in the name of Creative Parking, in which case it is okay to leave it in, but perhaps expand on why they believe this to be true.

shortysky

It was someone else who said that CEL is a third party for creation parking. So I did abit of research to see what I could find. And it does seem they are a third party but just seeing if that still gives them rights to issue court claims.. should I remove that part or should I try and use it or do I need more evidence. I need a proper close up of the entrance sign. To see what that says. 

shortysky

Fruitcake said:

A screenshot of this web page might be better as proof of address as it has an image of the restaurant on it.

PIZZA EXPRESS, Bramhall - 32 Woodford Rd - Restaurant Reviews, Photos & Phone Number - Tripadvisor


With regards to this,

"It is my understanding that the contract between the Landowner and the company appointed to manage this site is with a company called "Creative Parking."  If this is the case, then the Claimant has no authority to litigate on their behalf.  The Claimant is put to strict proof."

Creative Parking is a trading name of CEL. It is only worth mentioning if the name of the parking operator that appears on the signs is Creative Parking, or Starpark, which is another of their trading names and was on the signs that were removed.
If that is the case, then state that CEL is a stranger to the contract formed by signage at the site, and show a photo' of a sign with the different name.

If the signs say CEL, then I don't think there is any point in mentioning anything about Creative Parking, unless you have seen a landowner contract with that name on it.


You mention signs being removed on instruction from the council. You should refer to lack of Advertising Consent, not Planning Permission.

I need to go and fully check the entrance sign out to see what all the small print says, I know that the blue signs say CEL so I might just remove that part, about creative, I will also change the planning permissions part, I need to take the day photos out and just use the night photos, do I need to show a day photo to show they are not sticking to the COP for their signage? 

Umkomaas

do I need to show a day photo to show they are not sticking to the COP for their signage? 

I wouldn't, just assert that they are not complying within the BPA Code of Practice and let them argue against that. Remember, I t is their case to prove, not yours to disprove. In the vast majority of cases, when CEL see a full and robust defence, with the defendant jumping through all their hoops, they discontinue.  I think the finish line isn't that far away, keep on track, not long to go - IMHO. 

shortysky

Umkomaas said:

do I need to show a day photo to show they are not sticking to the COP for their signage? 

I wouldn't, just assert that they are not complying within the BPA Code of Practice and let them argue against that. Remember, I t is their case to prove, not yours to disprove. In the vast majority of cases, when CEL see a full and robust defence, with the defendant jumping through all their hoops, they discontinue.  I think the finish line isn't that far away, keep on track, not long to go - IMHO. 

So I have moved the part about creative parking, and added the bits about advertising not planning permissions. I’m just thinking shall I put one day light picture to show the lack of information on the signs or shall I just forget it, and just add the dark dash cam photos. I know I have ok grounds with the landlord 32 and the lack if visibility. But the signs are definitely not what they are meant to be. So I didn’t know if I should add a day picture just as back up. After these last little bits it will be ready to send. Thanks everyone feel so relived it’s been hard work but I don’t want to let these cowboys rob innocent people. So I’m fighting all the way. 

KeithP

That letter you have shown us states that the hospital has given permission for Creative Parking Solutions PLC to get keeper details from the DVLA on behalf of the NHS Trust.

Creative Parking Solutions PLC, Company number 06854331, is a different entity to the similarly named 'trading style' of Civil Enforcement Ltd.

It may also be worth noting that, according to Companies House, Creative Parking Solutions PLC was dissolved on 24th July 2018 and since September 2010 has been listed as a dormant company.