CEL claim - stages after CCJ set aside

CliveTreeHorn

Castle said:

CliveTreeHorn said:

CliveTreeHorn said:

I have received their witness statement. My court date is Thursday, 3rd April. 

The sign they have included in their exhibits has ABC Car Parking Solutions at the top and is dated Sept 2021. My photograph (referred to in my  WS) has Atlantis FM, a different firm. Presumably, the company changed at one point, so I am not sure what the sign displayed at the time of the alleged offence. 

The last exhibit does not list my car registration. I definitely bought a paper ticket. Is the fact that they have not displayed the full data relevant? 

They are claiming £281, but have made an offer to settle at £135. Their signs state (also in my WS) that they can only charge up to £100. 

Does anyone have any advice or insight they can offer to help me please. 

Does anyone have any comments on CEL produce a redacted list of car registrations on the date of the alleged offence ? 

It's redacted - can I argue that they should have supplied the full details?

Should I change the name of the subject of this thread , as the CCJ was removed last year and this week court appearance is a hearing.

It's worthless as there's no reconciliation with the monies received from the on site machines, by phone or accounting for refunds given back by Morrisons and has clearly been prepared after the event.

For example:-
1-According to their list some 36 cars entered and used phone & pay between 7.01pm and 7.08pm but no parking durations have been shown yet alone how much they paid.
2-Some vehicles appear twice under the heading "camera" but without any parking durations, are these the Morrisons refunds or drivers who failed to pay.
3-Five drivers have paid to park for 720 minutes, (so 12 Hours), between 4.53 and 4.59pm
4-Every ticket issued by a machine should have an unique number on it, but there're no numbers on their list so no proof that the list is complete or accurate.

In other news, according to Companies House, ABC Car Park Solutions Limited has never existed.

I'm dreading the case this week after the CCJ hearing, so thank you so much @castle this has given me the boost I need.

Massive thanks for the companies house information!! 

Re-reading their WS I note they do not refer by name to whom the owners of the car park are. 

Exhibit SW1 - has a confirmation of authority from the land controller called ABC Parking Solutions Ltd.

The photos in SW2 detail ABC Car Parking Solutions Limited.

The photos in SW3 display both ABC Car Parking Solutions Limited and ABC Facilities Management Ltd.

So that's a total of three different companies. None of which are listed on the PCNs.

ABC Facilities management was dissolved in April 23, according to Companies House, and like you say ABC Car Parking Solutions Limited never existed !

CliveTreeHorn

Also they said the following in their covering email:

Furthermore, please note that Scott Wilson will not be attending the hearing. A representative from the company or Counsel, will be attending on our behalf.  We confirm that we have notified the Court of the same.

I presume this is normal practice for them?

Coupon-mad

Yes, they'll send a rep.

CliveTreeHorn

In para. 27 of their WS they have included the text from one of the largest signs with the expectation of this sentence: "Enforcement is carried out by Civil Enforcement Ltd .... who monitor compliance of these terms and conditions using ANPR cameras and manual patrols and may contact the DVLA to request the Registered Keepers details in order to send a Parking Charge Notice"

I feel the fact they haven't included this statement is telling, as it backs up what I submitted in my WS - they have facilitate the terms offered by the principle. Worth raising to the judge?

Also, the photos they have included have a time and date stamp from occasions not related to the date of the alleged offence. I feel this is worth raising considering how many changes these signs have had (three companies' names in a three year period) thoughts?

Coupon-mad

You need to read Fairlie v Fenton (it's really old but still trite law). In order to be able to sue over a contract, the agent has to 'make it their own.'

CEL have not.

Looks from the sign that the contract is clearly offered by the principal (ABC) and only they can sue.

With an identified principal clearly proclaimed on the contract (the signs) CEL are at best, agents who get DVLA data and issue PCNs 'on behalf of' landowners. That's also supported by CEL's website which says (used to say?) exactly that! 

CliveTreeHorn

I've read it, and it's included in my WS but can I solely rely on it?

I had a bad experience with the judge at the CCJ hearing so I'm preparing as much as possible for Thursday.

Coupon-mad

Not solely, but FIRST!

CliveTreeHorn

Okay gotcha. Thank you and sorry for all the questions!

CliveTreeHorn

Hi all 

I've just received the following from the court: 

The Judge has read the pleadings and evidence in preparation for the hearing this afternoon at 2pm, 3 April 2025 and on the evidence before the Court the claim cannot succeed and will inevitably have to be dismissed (the Claimant’s evidence at paragraph 28 asserts a different date of parking to the Claimant’s pleaded case).

If the Defendant is content for the Judge to dismiss the claim with no order for costs, there is no need for a hearing at all and both Defendant and advocate who the Claimant has booked need not attend Court.

Please can the Defendant respond by return whether he still wishes to attend Court this afternoon. If the Defendant does not want to attend the hearing can be vacated and if he does want to attend the hearing will remain listed.

My question is, I would like to obtain my costs as I am significantly down due to the CCJ set aside application. However is there a risk I could blow it if I proceed with the hearing, or is this relatively safe?

 

CliveTreeHorn

I've decided to accept the offer and claim back my afternoon and spend it with my family.