Civil Enforcement CCJ set aside. Wording help please.

vincentvega27

Le_Kirk said:

As @Coupon-mad writes, you don't repeat things in the WS and you don't put your defence in there.  You can say at the beginning "my defence is repeated" but you don't need to actually repeat it because the judge will have it.  Your WS just needs to tell the story of what happened on the day and should back up what you have claimed in your defence with evidence.  For example you have stated "inadequate signage" and you need to provide evidence of that inadequacy either by going there and taking some photos or checking out Google street view or by searching the forum for the location of the car park to see if it has appeared on here before and if anybody has used photos in their WS.  You could also put out a general plea on your thread for "anybody with photos of xxx Car Park" please?
ETA  I've just been back through your thread and found that it was Morrisons in Peckham HERE is a Google Street View link for the place; does it help?  There do not seem to be any large signs showing payment machines just medium sized signs stating 3 hours maximum parking.  I know our local Morrisons has a system where you take a ticket for a stay of about an hour and get it validated in store; if you know you are going to be longer you pay an amount.  I also note that part way through the thread you were working/living in Brazil.  Is that still the case, if so I can appreciate how difficult it would be to take photos!
Searching only brings up two other cases both quite old: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5641697/parkingeye-fine-morrisons
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5530655/pcn-from-parking-eye-morrisons-car-park-help

Hi there, I have included a link to all the car park photos (minus me entering) in my last post. CEL sent them along with their witness statement. There are no photos of the ticket machine included in what they sent me so can I use this to say it is not signposted? Do i not need some kind of legal precedent or quote as to why this is good for my case though? Where can I find that. I have one for my ´hidden terms´ argument but not this.

I also included their witness statement the link as I´d love to know if I can do a Observations of Claimants WS section. I don´t know enough about the law to counter their witness statement though.

So to clarify i don´t need to include my defense at all in my witness statement? Why has the template I´m using done it then (baz417). Sorry this part is really confusing me and slowing me down. Made such slow progress yesterday as I spent half of day trying to get my head round what to include and what to not.

Coupon-mad

Because I assume baz didn't use that template defence.

I merely show his WS as an exemplar so people like you can:

(a)  see what a WS bundle with exhibits looks like and

(b). grab the three out of his seven exhibits that are standard for all cases, and

(c). Copy the style of how he sets his case out, and

(d). Obviously grab the latest stuff about the DLUHC's analysis in their July 2023 draft IA, because your defence DID NOT have that. 

You will of course be adding the transcript by HHJ Murch which is new.  The relevance of that is discussed all over the forum this week and there is a dedicated thread by Brightlinks showing the transcript.

If you want us to look at something (like the other side's WS - but it's just a standard template, so it is nothing that hasn't been debunked here before hundreds of times) please show it again.

We don't read back to previous pages (no time).

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

Because I assume baz didn't use that template defence.

I merely show his WS as an exemplar so people like you can:

(a)  see what a WS bundle with exhibits looks like and

(b). grab the three out of his seven exhibits that are standard for all cases, and

(c). Copy the style of how he sets his case out, and

(d). Obviously grab the latest stuff about the DLUHC's analysis in their July 2023 draft IA, because your defence DID NOT have that. 

You will of course be adding the transcript by HHJ Murch which is new.  The relevance of that is discussed all over the forum this week and there is a dedicated thread by Brightlinks showing the transcript.

If you want us to look at something (like the other side's WS - but it's just a standard template, so it is nothing that hasn't been debunked here before hundreds of times) please show it again.

We don't read back to previous pages (no time).

Hi there, OK got it,
Much appreciated.

Here´s the link to the car park photos as well as Scott´s WS. Would be really helpful to get a take on how I can best use these.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1EWyQgYTk8-lq1HeLLYelHl-eHYb3y2Hu?usp=sharing

As far as I understand currently my main defence is that I entered into no contract with the claimant, the terms of the contract were not clearly signposted, neither was the ticket machine. Going to try and get my head round this new defense as well.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

Because I assume baz didn't use that template defence.

I merely show his WS as an exemplar so people like you can:

(a)  see what a WS bundle with exhibits looks like and

(b). grab the three out of his seven exhibits that are standard for all cases, and

(c). Copy the style of how he sets his case out, and

(d). Obviously grab the latest stuff about the DLUHC's analysis in their July 2023 draft IA, because your defence DID NOT have that. 

You will of course be adding the transcript by HHJ Murch which is new.  The relevance of that is discussed all over the forum this week and there is a dedicated thread by Brightlinks showing the transcript.

If you want us to look at something (like the other side's WS - but it's just a standard template, so it is nothing that hasn't been debunked here before hundreds of times) please show it again.

We don't read back to previous pages (no time).

After reading the Murch Transcript a few times I´ve just about got my head around it. I never received a claim form but I did request the particulars of claim which I assume shows the same thing.

CLAIM FOR MONEY RELATING TO A PARKING CHARGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TERMS/CONDITIONS(TCS) FOR PARKING IN PRIVATE CAR PARK (CP) MANAGED BY CLAIMANT. DRIVERS MAY ONLY PARK PURSUANT TO TCS OF USE DISPLAYED IN CP AND AGREED UPONENTRY/PARKING. ANPR CAMERAS OR MANUAL PATROLSMONITOR VEHICLES ENTERING/EXITING THE CP AND TC BREACHES. CHARGES OF GBP xxx CLAIMED. VIOLATION DATE: xxx PAYMENT DUE DATE: xxx TIME IN: 15:52 TIME OUT: 16:04 PCN: xxx VEHICLE REG MARK: xxx CAR PARK:- BUTTERFLY WALK TOTAL DUE- GBP182.00 (PAY:WWW.CE-SERVICE.CO.UK OR 01158225020) THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE SUM OF GBP234.78 FOR THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGE INC GBP52.78 INTEREST UNDER S.69 OF THE CCA 1984 RATE: 8.00% PA FROM DUE DATE TO- 23/03/22 SAME RATE TO JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT AT DAILY RATE OF- GBP0.04 TOTAL DEBT AND INTEREST DUE- GBP234.78

 

Coupon-mad

I am loving those woeful POC.  And the fact the HHJ Murch judgment was against CEL for the exact same POC.

I am loving this sign just as much!

I'm sure the regulars can spot at 40 paces, the insurmountable legal problem that CEL have here:

B789

vincentvega27 said:

After reading the Murch Transcript a few times I´ve just about got my head around it. I never received a claim form but I did request the particulars of claim which I assume shows the same thing.

CLAIM FOR MONEY RELATING TO A PARKING CHARGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TERMS/CONDITIONS(TCS) FOR PARKING IN PRIVATE CAR PARK (CP) MANAGED BY CLAIMANT. DRIVERS MAY ONLY PARK PURSUANT TO TCS OF USE DISPLAYED IN CP AND AGREED UPONENTRY/PARKING. ANPR CAMERAS OR MANUAL PATROLSMONITOR VEHICLES ENTERING/EXITING THE CP AND TC BREACHES. CHARGES OF GBP xxx CLAIMED. VIOLATION DATE: xxx PAYMENT DUE DATE: xxx TIME IN: 15:52 TIME OUT: 16:04 PCN: xxx VEHICLE REG MARK: xxx CAR PARK:- BUTTERFLY WALK TOTAL DUE- GBP182.00 (PAY:WWW.CE-SERVICE.CO.UK OR 01158225020) THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE SUM OF GBP234.78 FOR THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGE INC GBP52.78 INTEREST UNDER S.69 OF THE CCA 1984 RATE: 8.00% PA FROM DUE DATE TO- 23/03/22 SAME RATE TO JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT AT DAILY RATE OF- GBP0.04 TOTAL DEBT AND INTEREST DUE- GBP234.78

This bit from para #9 in the HHJ Murch judgment applies:

"...there are a number of ways in which one might breach the terms and conditions. This is not set out in the brief claim form."

And in #10:

"It is incumbent upon the claimant (the respondent before me) to set out how it is that the entitlement to the charge arises. It is correct that this claim form sets out that there was a contract. One can safely infer that it is as a result of the driver bringing the car onto the land that it is being said by conduct a contract arose. It is also clear which vehicle is said to have been used in a manner which breached the contract. It is also clear where and when the breach is said to have occurred. The breach itself however is not set out. The conduct giving rise to the breach is not set out."

Coupon-mad

The POC are terrible. Which Butterfly Walk is it? There are hundreds!

Also search the forum for:

Fairlie Fenton Civil Enforcement

EDIT I think it's Denmark Hill, London and here's another sign there, that has the exact same legal issue as the first (quite apart from the fact the £100 is unreadable):

Coupon-mad

And reminding everyone that you can't attend in person, so I hope this is a phone hearing:

I currently am no longer living in the UK (Brazil) so will need to do any hearings via phone.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

I am loving those woeful POC.  And the fact the HHJ Murch judgment was against CEL for the exact same POC.

I am loving this sign just as much!

I'm sure the regulars can spot at 40 paces, the insurmountable legal problem that CEL have here:

Ok all good news then. I´ll be finishing WS today.

I´m seeing the tiny hard to read terms and conditions as my defence here, is this what you were referring to?

Coupon-mad

Nope it's not.  It's another legal issue.

You missed the importance of what I said here:

Also search the forum for:
Fairlie Fenton Civil Enforcement