Ccj and defence

Redx

I would not use pictures of the daylight signs

I would say in your WS

The signs are very poor and inadequate with little or no lighting and I put the claimant CEL to strict proof that the signs are fit for purpose , enough to form a contract at all , never mind on specific land near to this location outside pizza express , because in my opinion they are abysmal 

Or something similar !! Lol. 😁😁👍👍👍

I agree with Umkomaas , chances are that CEL will discontinue , meaning a victory for you

shortysky

so should i remove anything from here such as the view from the parking bay and the exhibit 4 with that day light image and also exhibit 3. and just leave exhibit one with the images from the dash cam?

  " Upon receipt of the PCN I made a subsequent visit to the location in daylight hours. On this occasion I observed some small signs which were not illuminated or prominent, also no prominent signs about ANPR cameras being used. Photos of the signs. SEE PHOTO EXHIBIT CD3. Signage near parking bay I pulled up into. SEE PHOTO EXHIBIT CD4. There were no clear signs facing the approaching vehicles to inform drivers parking restrictions are in place. Apparently, the signs they once had SEE PHOTO EXHIBIT CD5 were removed by the council, prior to the date of this alleged contravention. This indicates that the claimant had lack of advertising consent for sufficient entry signs." 

Redx

Keep the story , remove the signage exhibits and numbers , maybe add what I said too , as text , add dash cam pictures where appropriate , with exhibit numbers . Mention who told you that signage was removed after the council complaint

Think it's close to coming out of the oven now , so a good job once you took the comments as helping , not a criticism of you , well done for giving it a good go , and allowing us to help you. It may be tough love , but it's well meaning tough love. 😁😁👍👍

shortysky

yes i have moved them and adding your bit, should i say " i put the claimant to strict proof that the signs are fit for purpose" or should i word it differently lol. yes its been had and stressful but I'm glad i stuck with it and that you all helped. so thank you.

Redx

Use my wording if you wish , unless anyone else replies , it is for cel to prove it to a judge , not you

If more people who come here put the same effort in as you , especially into the WS , our tasks would be much easier

From what I have seen , your WS plus Exhibits bundle is now ten times better than most !!  👍👍

These type of side roads with shops are traps , shouldn't be allowed !!

shortysky

aw thanks makes me feel a whole lot better, actually feels good to fight your side and get your point across to the judge once you know what your doing lol. And if i win will feel like a real achievement,  yes the man at the shop said this also. they have had so many issues with this road and parking. its a shame as it ruins it for the businesses, like pizza express has bad reviews for the parking. i have changed bits and bobs and going to put the final piece on here. hoping it finished now and ready to send. Am i best waiting for CEL's WS or can i just send this to the court and CEL at any point. Do i just send it to CEL's email address on the website?

shortysky

so this is my final one well i hope so, changed a couple of bits, is there anything ive missed what people have said to change, or am i good to get this ready to send?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

 

Claim No.: xx

 

Between

Civil Enforcement Limited

 (Claimant) 

 

- and -  

 

xx

 (Defendant)

 

BUNDLE – TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

  

Content                                                                                                                                Page       Witness Statement			2 – 4
Exhibit CD1 – Photo of signage from dash cam.			5-6
Exhibit CD2 – Photos of darkness from PCN photo.			7-8
Exhibit CD3 – Photos of previous signs.			9-10
Exhibit CD4- Notice to keeper			11
Exhibit CD5 – Address of Pizza Express			12-14
Exhibit CD6 – Claim form referring to Woodford Road			15

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

 

Claim No.: xx

 

Between

Civil Enforcement Limited

 (Claimant) 

 

- and -  

 

xx

 (Defendant)

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

 

 

1.         I am xx of xx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge and online resources.

 

2.         In my statement I refer to photographic exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, to support my defence. I will say as follows: 

3.      The claimant has inflated the claim from £100.00 rising to £182.00. This additional cost amounts to more than "double recovery" of fees that are already part of core charge on the Notice to keeper.  This is also in breach of the Beavis Judgement and in breach of the Consumer Rights (grey list) 2015 Sch 2 and is an abuse of process to attempt to recover sums they are not entitled to.

4.      The claimant's trade body, the British Parking Association (BPA), has no legal status so the Defendant requests the Claimant gives a full explanation of the authority they intend to rely on regarding this add on amount.  

5.      The claimant is put to strict proof that their signage complied with their COP and passes the test for Beavis visibility.  The signage at this location is clearly unlit SEE PHOTO EXHIBIT CD1 nor prominent for approaching vehicles and as this alleged breach occurred in the hours of darkness, as shown on the Notice to Keeper, it would have been impossible to see the signs which are in place.

 

6.        On 9th December 2019 at 5.59 I pulled into a service road and parked outside a Pizza Express restaurant on Woodford Road, Stockport. I pulled into the last parking bay outside pizza express, to breast feed my 2-month-old child at this point I was still in the car, it was a busy night and I recall the streets being busy. I was breastfeeding in the car for roughly an hour or more, I then needed to change my babies’ clothes and nappy, as she had been sick on herself. My passenger did however leave the car to get some refreshments from pizza express. I calmed down and feed baby, so I could continue to drive safely. It was a tense drive as I was a new driver and mum with a crying hungry baby on board. I was shaky and on edge. My passenger came out with the food who also did not notice any signs, once I had tended to my babies needs, we ate in the car and left as I felt it was safe to do so.

 

7.     On entering the service road it was dark and busy moderately busy with passers-by and people gathering. I did not see any signs about parking on arrival nor on leaving the road. The darkness is evident on the claimants PNC images. My headlights are on. SEE PHOTO EXHIBIT CD2.

 

8.       Upon receipt of the PCN I made a subsequent visit to the location in daylight hours. On this occasion I observed some small signs which were not illuminated or prominent, also no prominent signs about ANPR cameras being used.  The signs are very poor and inadequate with little or no lighting and I put the claimant to strict proof that the signs are fit for purpose, enough to form a contract at all. It would be nearly impossible to see the other sign on the wall, near the middle bay as I did not get out of the car and would be to dark, even if I did get out the car they would have been missed easily. There were no clear signs facing the approaching vehicles to inform drivers parking restrictions are in place. Apparently, the signs they once had SEE PHOTO EXHIBIT CD3 were removed by the council, prior to the date of this alleged contravention. This indicates that the claimant had lack of advertising consent for sufficient entry signs.

9.         On the 13th of December 2019I received a Notice to Keeper, for an alleged parking event on land at 34 - 38 Woodford Road, Stockport. see Exhibit CD4. I appealed on the 18th of December 2019, stating that I did not leave the vehicle as I was breastfeeding an infant under six months, whilst my passenger did in fact leave the vehicle to make purchase for us from pizza express. I stated I did not see any signage on entering or leaving the street.

 

10.      Also, it should be noted that this specific restaurant is located at number 32, Woodford Road, Stockport, which is outside the area stated on the notice to keeper. See Exhibit CD5 This building not owned by the same company according to the owners of 34-38 (DRE properties)

 

11.         On the 18th of December 2019 I followed the claimants inhouse appeal procedure, but they failed to mitigate and uphold my appeal. I was going to appeal to POPLA with more evidence after id done some work on this appeal. But unfortunately became ill and then moved home.

 

 

12.       I later received a court claim, all correspondents before the court claim refer to 34-38 Woodford road, the claim form particulars of claim are vague and only refer to “car park Woodford Road.” Which could have been any one of the halve a dozen or so car park parks, on the six-mile-long road. The claimant does not specify where the alleged event took place. see Exhibit CD6. The claimant is put to strict proof.

 

13.         The Equality Act 2010 prohibits direct and indirect discrimination against a person who has protected characteristics within the meaning of the Act.
Section 17 para 4 of the Act states that reasonable adjustments must be made for a person who is breastfeeding an infant under 6 months of age. This was brought to the claimant’s attention in my appeal, so it is in my belief the claimant’s rejection of my initial appeal was discriminatory.

 

14.       It took approximately around an hour to breastfeed my child, and before it was safe to drive. This did not involve the obvious requirements for hygiene. A reasonable adjustment in this instance would have been to extend the permitted parking situation in line with my situation.

 

15.   The claimants code of practise states they must make necessary adjustments in line with the Equalities Act. Therefore, together with their inadequate signage, the claimant has failed to make reasonable adjustments.

16.   I do not believe the claimant has suffered any loss regarding this “de minimis” matter.

17.       Upon confirmation that attendance at any hearing would result in a loss of leave, I will ask for my fixed witness costs of £95 as specified by CPR Practice Direction 27, 7.3(1), and due under CPR 27.14(2)(e).

18.       As a litigant-in-person I have had to spend considerable time researching the law online, attempting to correctly interpret the legal terminology, preparing my defence, and preparing my witness statement.

Statement of Truth

 STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts contained in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Redx

I agree , these traps should be against the law and council controlled , it's not a car park !! , Never was , it's like a lay-by side road servicing the shops

Most people would wait until the day before the deadline for filing , then you would email the civil court in Manchester and CC the claimant CEL into the same email , so both get it

CEL should have provided email details on the original claim form , the N1 pack from the CCBC in Northampton , it should also be on their ws when you receive it by email too , so a good reason to wait and see , or maybe somebody else on here will give you the correct cel email address in the meantime

shortysky

Yes it should be like the councils 1/2 hr no return. There is a car park across the road (I didn’t know about till recently) that costs 20p. Hopefully one day they stop getting away with it. I will check out the claim form and see. Is that when I will most likely receive CEL WS towards the deadline? 

Coupon-mad

Yes, if at all!