CEL in-house claim: hearing & WS help

Coupon-mad

I suggest you add this to para 1:

The Defendant asks for relief from sanctions for lateness, given that the hearing order requires documents to be filed and served by 8 June 2026. I missed this deadline as my mother was in hospital following heart attack. I wonder what this serial litigant's excuse is because they have failed to serve anything.

Remove this from the Jopson quote abd replace these snipped words with […]:

"in the course of moving in"

And obviously you need Jopson as an exhibit. The transcript from the judge.

And go through it all much more carefully because you have copied totally untrue statements, e.g. this:

"The vehicle was stopped temporarily in a visitor bay to assist with unloading furniture during move-in on 29 May 2025. This was a brief, purposeful activity essential to occupation of the property, not an act of parking for convenience."

…and this:

"The Particulars of Claim (POC) simply allege that the driver “Failed to obtain a permit in accordance with the notified terms”. "

Not true. I an 99% sure the POC don't state the breach but you showed us the wrong claim form.

This thread told is at the start that it's a separate claim about an event in November 2024, not the POC you showed us.

bagold

Thank you. The amended bits are:

1. I am xxx of xxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. The Defendant asks for relief from sanctions for lateness, given that the hearing order requires documents to be filed and served by 8 June 2026. I missed this deadline as my mother in-law was in hospital following a heart attack. I wonder what this serial litigant's excuse is because they have failed to serve anything.

3. The Defendant was only stationary in the car park for a short period of time while making a delivery of home cooked food to one of the residents at Oakmead Court West on 6 July 2024. The resident, for whom the meal was being delivered, has mobility issues and is not able to answer the door within the time a person with normal physical capacity can. Time taken to manoeuvre the car within the car park, for the resident to reach the apartment block door (using a zimmer frame), to take the meal to her kitchen, and to return to the car can easily take the time taken on this occasion. The Defendant's car was not causing an obstruction to other vehicles including emergency vehicles.

There is no alternative parking available within the car park or outside the car park within a reasonable distance to be able to make a delivery. Valencia Road immediately outside the car park is unadopted with no parking available. As a person bringing food the Defendant is classed as a carer and covered by the Equality Act 2010. This was not parking and this principle is supported by the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E (Oxford County Court), in which His Honour Judge Harris QC ruled that

"Unloading [...] is not parking in the usual sense of the word and does not constitute a breach of terms.”

4. The Claimant’s case is vague, lacking the detail required under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, which require a claimant to set out all facts necessary to establish a complete cause of action. The Particulars of Claim (POC) simply allege “Claim for money relating to a Parking Charge for beach 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 upon entry/parking. ANPR cameras or manual patrols monitor vehicles entering/exiting the CP and TC Breaches.”. However, the Claimant provides no information on the specific terms said to have been breached, the conduct that allegedly broke those terms, or how any contract was formed. This absence of essential detail fails to justify the claim and has also made it difficult for me to respond to it effectively.

Details of POC in 4 is now same as we wrote for 8.

We'll send this unless there are any further comments.

Coupon-mad

Remove your name & address from the post!

Do not send this yet. Give us a chance to look at it tonight. You need Henderson v Henderson wording added.

Was this claim dated AFTER the other one you defended please?

And what exhibits are you attaching?

And what costs assessment?

ChirpyChicken

CEL will not pay the hearing fee.

Remove your personal details above

bagold

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82050944#Comment_82050944

There are no exhibits. Yes this after filing our Defence and N180.

Gr1pr

There are various exhibits that need to be included, as mentioned in post 2 in the newbies sticky thread in announcements ( everybody includes a few Exhibits. )

ChirpyChicken

People seem to missing the elephant in the room

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82051313#Comment_82051313

That isn't what I asked.

My questions are:

Was this claim dated AFTER the issue date of the other one, please?

And what exhibits are you attaching? Come on, you don't just send your story; in the NEWBIES thread post 2 I list a dozen recommended exhibits!

And what costs assessment?

bagold

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82052021#Comment_82052021

I am not sure what you mean by "Was this claim dated AFTER the issue date of the other one, please?" Do you mean the claim I am dealing with in another thread? This thread is for a claim against my wife. The other thread is for a claim against my mother's friend. On this thread I only have one claim. Apologies if I am confused and confusing others too.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6669620/claim-for-parking-in-disabled-bay-with-blue-badge-but-not-registering-inside-mall#latest

Coupon-mad

OK, sorry that wasn't clear, but it is now, so you can't use Henderson v Henderson. Forget that.

But the witness needs exhibits.