Thought I had a defence lined up, now doubting myself

Coupon-mad

Do I just proceed with abuse of process and hope that, in the likely event it gets to Court, I am ordered to pay just the original PCN of £100?

No.  Far from it.  Stop doubting yourself!

You proceed with your full defence and at WS stage, that photo is useful.  Star Park have not ceased trading, they are a trading style of CEL who are alive and kicking and are suing you.

They are notoriously really BAD at evidence and we almost always beat them in court, which is now a remote hearing by phone, so no biggie.

And as has been said above, as Claimants, this is their case to prove, not yours.

Le_Kirk

Providing you used the "running out of fuel" argument in your defence (I seem to remember you did) then you can probably use this: -

4.     The issues in the Defendant's case are similar to the sort of temporary stopping in emergency as mentioned by Judge Harris in para 20 of Jopson v Home Guard [2016] B9GF0A9E (on Appeal at Oxford County Court) referred to "and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture".

Of course running out of fuel is as debilitating as a flat tyre, in fact more so!

1505grandad

Playing devil's advocate:-

"Causing an obstruction with a car that's out of fuel falls under the careless and inconsiderate driving penalty."

would the claimant latch onto something similar to the above and interpret it to align with their own sense of importance/authority?

MildPanic

go-on-then said:

I know you said the carpark is now closed and barricaded but can you definitely not get back in there on foot to check it out ?? 

I drove past it this morning on my way to the office, it's completely bare.  Just an empty strip of land.

Thank you for all of your responses.  I definitely need to flip my mindset in that they need to prove but also retain the 'fight' within.

MildPanic

1505grandad said:

Playing devil's advocate:-

"Causing an obstruction with a car that's out of fuel falls under the careless and inconsiderate driving penalty."

Am I being naive in thinking that that isn't their remit? 

They're simply there to prove I should have paid and a traffic offence is for the police to deal with, and within 14 days of the incident occurring.

Therefore, it's null and void.

1505grandad

You have missed this:-

"would the claimant latch onto something similar to the above and interpret it to align with their own sense of importance/authority?"  

the ppc are in an unregulated industry and make up their own rules/interpretations  -  I was gently hinting that perhaps your vehicle broke down and after obtaining the relevant fix you exited the car park, or similar.

Trainerman

1505grandad said:

Playing devil's advocate:-

"Causing an obstruction with a car that's out of fuel falls under the careless and inconsiderate driving penalty."

Just considering this and having not read back through the thread, did this by any chance happen when there was the recent fuel shortage? Such an event may well catch out even the most prudent of drivers

1505grandad

First post  -  "Violation date: nn/nn/2019"

MildPanic

I have a court date! 

Which, I must admit, I'm a little disheartened by having read that so many CEL ones are discontinued before this point.

I'm in the process of writing my WS.

Couple of questions:

1) How do I know if CEL have paid the court fee?

2) Can I include WS from others who are unlikely to attend court.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

1. Assume they will pay.  Crack on!

2.  No point having third party WS if the others aren't attending the hearing ... unless the WS are so compelling and useful to add weight to your case that you want to include hearsay statements like that?

The most recent good example 2022 WS is by @aphex007