Help Advice against CEL

noddy78

Hi All,

Thanks for all your replies and advice on this forum they are a great help. 

So I completed my AoS a couple of weeks back and intended to get my defence in much sooner but unfortunately due to some unforeseen circumstances I am only just getting to do it now.  From the information kindly provided by KeithP I believe we have until 4pm today to get it filed. 

I am using the template from October 2020 (hope that is the correct version to use) but I am struggling slightly how to word paragraph 3 in a legal sense and what the legal arguments are here.  To recap this was a site of multiple retail stores with a time limit in operation and ANPR cameras in use to track time of entry and exit of the given parking site.  This is what I have for 2 & 3 so far.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question on the date of the alleged events, but liability is denied. 

3.  The Defendant was using the parking facilities on the site of the retail stores they were visiting on the date of the alleged events.  The Defendant did not see on entering the parking site clear and concise signage to state a maximum time limit was in operation for using the said parking facilities. As there were multiple retail stores on the site of the alleged parking offenses and no ticket machines in operation the Defendant made the assumption that this was a free parking site for customers using the said retail stores. 

Once my defence is complete am I right in saying it needs to be printed, signed, scanned and then emailed to CCBCAQ@stice.gov.uk as a pdf.

Do I need to include any further inserts with the defence at this stage, I saw some references in other posts to other cases such as Southampton.  

Also CEL have now decided to send us a letter for a further PCN which I don't believe they have mentioned in any previous correspondence.  They have not [progressed to a court claim for this PCN at this stage but have suggested they will do.  Should I mention this in my defence at all? 

Coupon-mad

Remove the incorrect word 'offences' and the entire sentence about you making an assumption!

noddy78

Ok thanks.  Is this better?  I could go into much more details about my dealings with CEL but I understand this is not required at this stage and the defence should be kept short and to the point.  Would that be right?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question on the date of the alleged events, but liability is denied. 

3.  The Defendant was using the parking facilities on the site of the retail stores they were visiting on the date of the alleged events.  The Defendant did not see on entering the parking site clear and concise signage to state a maximum time limit was in operation for using the said parking facilities. The parking site in question has multiple retail stores and no ticket machines in operation so the Defendant had no reason to search for any obstructed signage.   

Coupon-mad

I think I would add another numbered paragraph:

The Defendant has researched images of this Claimant's signs because the Claimant failed to provide an image of the alleged parking charge contract (sign) in their pre-action correspondence, which instead consisted of intimidating demands threatening dire consequences, a CCJ and was used as a blatant attempt to run up disproportionate costs that the PAP and CPR1 disallows.  The signs the Claimant uses at its car parks are extremely wordy and any parking charge is positively buried in minuscule small print that no driver, either in a car or standing below it, could read.  Even if the Claimant provides late evidence of a sign showing a time limit, it is denied that the onerous 'penalty clause' effect of a parking charge was capable of being read at all.  Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' for onerous terms is still trite law, cemented in modern times by both the Supreme Court ParkingEye v Beavis case and also the Consumer Rights Act 2015 tests of transparency and prominence.

noddy78

Amazing thank you.  So this is my new paragraph

3.  The Defendant was using the parking facilities on the site of the retail stores they were visiting on the date of the alleged events.  The Defendant did not see on entering the parking site clear and concise signage to state a maximum time limit was in operation for using the said parking facilities. The parking site in question has multiple retail stores and no ticket machines in operation so the Defendant had no reason to search for any obstructed signage.   

The Defendant has researched images of this Claimant's signs because the Claimant failed to provide an image of the alleged parking charge contract (sign) in their pre-action correspond, a CCJ and was used as an excuse to purport to run up disproportionate costs that the PAP and CPR1 disallows.  The signs the Claimant uses are very wordy and any parking charge is positively buried in minuscule small print that no driver, either in a car or standing below it, could read.

Even if the Claimant provides late evidence of a sign showing a time limit, it is denied that the onerous 'penalty clause' effect of a parking charge was capable of being read at all.  Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' for onerous terms is still trite law, cemented in modern times by both the Supreme Court ParkingEye v Beavis case and also the Consumer Rights Act 2015 tests of transparency and prominence.

Coupon-mad

All need para numbers.  You are meant to re-number the template below whatever number of paragraphs you add.

Le_Kirk

............ and don't forget to add in the rest of the template before sending it to the CCBC.  Make sure you receive an auto reply receipt from CCBC and good luck with it.

noddy78

Hey All, 

So after filing our defense and receiving acknowledgement from the court we have now received the N180 form for completion. 

We am going to follow the guidance on one of the threads to help complete this (I understand always say no to mediation). 

However my quick question is it says a copy of this completed form has to be served to the claimant however the court has only provided one copy. Do we simply photocopy the completed form and send it to the claimant? 

Coupon-mad

Email to both.

Plenty of threads give CEL's emails.

Redx

Ideally you download the pdf , fill it in on a laptop and email it to both , keeping the paper form , no need  post either

The 12 numbered steps by coupon mad in the defence template post tells you this