CEL send Court Claim form after nearly 5 years

chattyj

Fruitcake said:

It will be easy for CEL to prove there were signs on site at the time of the alleged event, but it will be up to you to show they were inadequate.

Anyone can show a stock image or a close up of a sign, but it doesn't take too much to pick angles that show how easy it would have been for a motorist to miss them.

Have another look at GSV, use the historic images and navigate your way round to find images that support your case, especially if you can find any near where the car was parked. 

Click next to the clock to pull up historic images, search the timeline, then click on the large thumbnail.



Front entrance in April 2017. Would a driver see the permit only sign, or would they be looking at oncoming traffic, watching vehicles leaving, watching out for pedestrians, looking for the hotel entrance?




If a driver approached from this direction they wouldn't see the sign at all.



In the car park, 2018. Note the signs are actually outside the car park meaning a driver could reasonably assume they applied to parking on the road the other side of the wall, and nothing at all to do with the hotel car park.

awesome many thanks, i had know idea they held an historic veiw.

Umkomaas

You can potentially get your costs for the time at the hearing - max £95 (you'll need to show wage slips to prove earnings level) - by including it in your draft costs schedule. We rarely ever see counterclaim success, and given that you'd have to pay to make the claim, you have to be certain about the level of unreasonableness shown by CEL. 

While you may be mighty hissed off with what you're having to do to ward them off, nothing I've read in your thread suggests what you're having to deal with is any different to the hundreds of other cases (CEL and other PPCs) that are subject to the harassment and intimidation meted out.  Unless I've missed something?

Coupon-mad

Costs are not a counterclaim.

chattyj

Hi All, will CEL have a copy of my popla appeal, I have just recived a copy of it and  note that I wrote 'The receptionist must have thought I was within the grace period as didn't mention obtaining a permit'. I never actually put in my popla claim that she said I didn't need a permit becuase i would have been in the grace period.   Thanks again

Fruitcake

Yes, CEL will have a copy of your PoPLA appeal, but you will have the opportunity to refute any inaccuracies at the WS stage and at the hearing itself.

chattyj

Fruitcake said:

Yes, CEL will have a copy of your PoPLA appeal, but you will have the opportunity to refute any inaccuracies at the WS stage and at the hearing itself.

Many Thanks,

chattyj

Here is my defence so far 'thanks to Fruitcake'.  I'm unsure if i'm waffliing a bit, I havent included any photo evidence yet as assume that goes in the WS, (but when can I submitted a WS)? Feedback would be greatly appreicated.

2. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

 

3. On the 20 Mar 2017 at 19:02:08, the defendant entered the Holiday Inn car park from the left-hand side of the road. There is no clear signage relating to a permit being required to park from this approach. Where the defendant parked their car, the permit signs are actually outside the car park meaning a driver could reasonably assume they applied to parking on the road on the other side of the wall, and nothing at all to do with the hotel car park.

After leaving the car, the defendant took time to unbuckle two children and gather overnight bags. The defendant then entered the hotel receipt and, after queueing for a while, they were informed that they were actually booked into the hotel Inn Express next door. There was no mention of obtaining a car permit from the receptionist, as the assumption was the defendant would have been within the grace period. The defendant then returned to their car, buckled in two children and left the car park at 19:17:00, some 14 mins and 52 seconds later.

After returning from their holiday two weeks later, the defendant had received a £100 notice (reduced to 60 if paid early); after contacting the hotel, the defendant was informed the hotel had used their quota of PCN overrules for the month. So due to the timeline, the defendant appealed the charge. The appeal was rejected, so the defendant contacted the hotel again; this time, the hotel attempted to overrule, but the option was grey out due to the charge being rejected at appeal. The hotel then directly contacted the claimant, asking them to overrule the charge, but the claimant refused.

The claimant then continued to harass the defendant with demand letters from various solicitors, increasing the charge each time. The last letter was received on 18 Apr 2019; since then, no letter before claim has been received, allowing the defendant time to request a SAR from the claimant.

Coupon-mad

Why are no posters adding 'and driver' to point 2, is it unclear in the Template Defence guidance?

What do I need to change?

asking them to overrule the charge,

Overrule is the wrong word there.

chattyj

Coupon-mad said:

Why are no posters adding 'and driver' to point 2, is it unclear in the Template Defence guidance?

What do I need to change?

asking them to overrule the charge,

Overrule is the wrong word there.

Hi Coupon-mad, thank you for your comments, the template said you might want to add ' and driver' but I will add that for sure.

I'll change overule the charge to cancel the charge.

Are there any other chances you think I should make, I will send my photos as per of my WS when requests.

Thanks again,

Fruitcake

chattyj said:

Here is my defence so far 'thanks to Fruitcake'.  I'm unsure if i'm waffliing a bit, I havent included any photo evidence yet as assume that goes in the WS, (but when can I submitted a WS)? Feedback would be greatly appreicated.

2. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

 

3. On the material date 20 Mar 2017 at 19:02:08, the defendant entered the Holiday Inn car park, Taunton from the left-hand side of the road. 

** You need to explain this better since a driver would normally be on the left side of the road. Did you perhaps mean that you approached with the hotel entrance on the left? **

There is was no clear signage relating to a permit being required to park visible from this approach. Where the defendant parked their car, the nearest permit signs are were actually situated outside the car park beyond a wall, meaning a driver could reasonably assume they applied to parking on the public road on the other side of the wall, from which the defendant had just entered, and nothing at all to do with the hotel car park.

After leaving the car, the defendant took time to unbuckle two children and gather overnight bags. The defendant then entered the hotel receipt and, after queueing for a while, they were informed that they were actually booked into the hotel Inn Express next door. There was no mention of needing to obtaining a car permit from the receptionist. as the assumption was the defendant would have been within the grace period. The defendant then returned to their car, buckled in two children and left the car park at 19:17:00, some 14 minutes and 52 seconds later.

It should be noted that the time on site was recorded by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras that only record time on site, not parking time.

It should also be noted that loading and unlading both goods and people is not parking as determined in the appeal court case of Laura Jopson versus Homeguard Servises, case number  B9GF0A9E. Being an appeal court case, it is persuasive on the lower courts.

After returning from their holiday two weeks later, the defendant had received a £100 notice (reduced to 60 if paid early); after contacting the hotel, the defendant was informed the hotel had used their quota of PCN overrules for the month. So due to the timeline, the defendant appealed the charge. The appeal was rejected, so the defendant contacted the hotel again; this time, the hotel attempted to overrule, but the option was grey out due to the charge being rejected at appeal. The hotel then directly contacted the claimant, asking them to overrule the charge, but the claimant refused.

** Insert something here about the claim being vexatious because Holiday Inn, who are the principal, required the claimant to cancel the charge **

The claimant then continued to harass the defendant with demand receive letters from various solicitors, increasing the charge each time. The last letter was received on 18 Apr 2019; since then, no letter before claim has been received, allowing the defendant time to request a SAR from the claimant.

A few suggestions for you.