Highview Parking: claim going to court! Help!

lewisham_phil

Thanks. I have added the entire transcript, and of course it has it's own paragraph numbers, aswell as page numbers, which is possibly confusing: Would it be OK to copy it up here, or attach a (redacted!) PDF to give a final once over? I am paranoid that it will laughed out of court for some arcane legal reason!

Thanks!

UncleThomasCobley

You embed the transcript as 4 jpg files. As this is a defence, you cannot "attach" the transcript as a pdf file.

Here...

lewisham_phil

Thanks Uncle Tom; but I meant can I attach my entire Defence PDF (with the transcript embedded, as you suggest) to my thread, for a quick perusal by you or others, lest I have done something stupid: and as CEL v Chan  is now embedded, does the disparity in paragraph numbers (and inclusion of the page numbers) cause any confusion, or is it considered obvious it is 'added'?

Thanks again for all your time on this.

Phil

Coupon-mad

Surely it looks a bit like this?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80396973/#Comment_80396973

Not confusing as the transcript is clearly an image.

lewisham_phil

Thanks; I've added a border on the transcript pages, so they are now clearly differentiated. I shall email it to CCBCAQ@  tomorrow..

Thanks for all the invaluable help.

lewisham_phil

I sent in my Defence letter, received a reply straightaway from CCBCAQ; 

"AUTO RESPONSE DO NOT REPLY - CCBC AQ Acknowledgment"

Can I just confirm that this means I don't need to do anything until I receive a Directions Questionnaire (form N180) from them? Or should I pre-emptively fill one in and send it to the court and the claimant's solicitors? Slightly worried by the tenor of the acknowledgment letter that they are overwhelmed and have a large backlog.

Basically, am I legally covered if I wait for them to send the N180?

Umkomaas

The CNBC are reportedly to be up to two months behind in their admin, so expect a delay. There's nothing you need to do procedurally until you receive your N180 (as opposed to the Claimant's N180), but you could make a start on drafting your Witness Statement, because a two month wait for the N180 will mean memory about the parking event will be more dulled. 

Coupon-mad

lewisham_phil said:

So this is my initial stab.. apologies for any newbie-mangled legalese nonsense. 

3. The Defendant did park at the Catford Retail Leisure Park on the 15/12/2019, visiting Dreams Beds, and also Lidl as they do frequently, often driving around the car park for a considerable period before finding a space. The Defendant has no recollection of over-staying, or being close to any time penalties on this visit. The Defendant did not receive any letters regarding the claim within 14 days.

I know your defence is in but we hope you removed that stuff about 'overstay'?

lewisham_phil

Coupon-mad said:

lewisham_phil said:

So this is my initial stab.. apologies for any newbie-mangled legalese nonsense. 

3. The Defendant did park at the Catford Retail Leisure Park on the 15/12/2019, visiting Dreams Beds, and also Lidl as they do frequently, often driving around the car park for a considerable period before finding a space. The Defendant has no recollection of over-staying, or being close to any time penalties on this visit. The Defendant did not receive any letters regarding the claim within 14 days.

I know your defence is in but we hope you removed that stuff about 'overstay'?

Yes I removed it!  As suggested by Uncle Thomas Cobbley, I  just stated that I parked as a visitor to the retailers at the site.

Coupon-mad

lewisham_phil said:

Coupon-mad said:

lewisham_phil said:

So this is my initial stab.. apologies for any newbie-mangled legalese nonsense. 

3. The Defendant did park at the Catford Retail Leisure Park on the 15/12/2019, visiting Dreams Beds, and also Lidl as they do frequently, often driving around the car park for a considerable period before finding a space. The Defendant has no recollection of over-staying, or being close to any time penalties on this visit. The Defendant did not receive any letters regarding the claim within 14 days.

I know your defence is in but we hope you removed that stuff about 'overstay'?

Yes I removed it!  As suggested by Uncle Thomas Cobbley, I  just stated that I parked as a visitor to the retailers at the site.

Good.

Now there's one more urgent thing to do. What you are dealing with is a hidden scandal affecting hundreds of thousands of good people every year.

Please please please also find time to do this new Call for Evidence this month, to change things forever:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80375249/#Comment_80375249

The Committee invites evidence on:

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

Please tell them that private parking firms and their bulk litigators are the problem as far as small claims delays are concerned, as they dominate court lists. Parking claim numbers are rising every year and will make up about a third of all small claims in 2023, based on the 2022 figures that the MoJ divulged in the DLUHC's recent Parking Code of Practice Call for Evidence:

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence#:~:text=The%20call%20for%20evidence%20is,help%20the%20decision%2Dmaking%20process.

The MoJ must now be informed to urgently separate parking cases with a new pre-action protocol (requiring use of ADR instead of inflated debt demands and bulk litigators who want court).

It should be a last resort but it's the first aim of bulk litigators taking over the small claims track.

These MPs are inviting evidence not rants or opinion so we need people like you to respond, who are currently caught up in this nightmare that you are. You have a solid case evidence to show the Committee to state that parking claims are not 'debt' claims, they are extortionate and exaggerated rogue claims.

Please tell the Committee that the whole private parking legislative framework needs to be removed from the inappropriate 'debt claims pre-action protocol' which is a terrible set of forms asking you to fill in whether you can 'afford' to pay a scam PCN or not.  Completely irrelevant to disputed rogue PCNs.

Ideally, parking cases should NEVER go to county court and should not be able to affect people's credit rating, probably millions of times in recent years.

Interested parties have until 14 December to make a submission to the committee.