CEL parking defence help!?

777ade777 wrote: »

Thanks LOC!

When completing this letter with DQs should i add my version of the story adding that i can provide witness statements to prove the car parking officer allow employees from my work place to park there? No. The purpose of this letter is to get the judge to find that they were out of time with the PoC and should be compelled to apply for relief (ie permission) under 3.9.
If you were to write with your story, that's a different matter altogether - that would be you effectively applying for what is called "summary judgment", under rule 24. Where a Defendant has a really weak/no defence, or the Claim is really weak/non-existent, then the other party can apply at an early stage for the case to be determined on the basis of just the PoC/defence, without the need for WSs. Or sometimes parties wait until after the WSs are in then apply.
Where it's one person's word against the other the court will invariably reject a R24 application and allow it to proceed to a hearing, where the evidence can be "tested" with cross examination.
Sometimes at this stage, where the PoC are really brief (as they often are) people also ask the court to throw the whole thing out under R3.4. This doesn't require you telling your story, just pointing out that the PoC don't make out a case. Sometimes a judge will throw it out, usually they order further PoC, often they ignore it altogether and allow the thing to proceed. The approach in small claims is much more slapdash than in other types of claims. This isn't something you'd do in your case because you at least have some PoC that make half sense.


Unless you have an open and shut defence (for instance, like someone who paid for the parking, displayed their ticket correctly and can prove it, or someone who got a ticket and then immediately paid it and can prove it, so there simply is no claim) it's not worth applying for summary judgment. The court is unlikely to accept a letter from you and will ask you to formally apply (an application that can be dealt with on paper costs £100 to issue, an application that requires a hearing costs £255 to issue).


So I'd keep it simple and complain about:
1. the blatant refusal to comply with the pre-action obligations of the Protocol and the PD before it, which has prevented you from understanding the claim and dealing with it properly. The court should exercise its powers under para 15 of the PD to stay the claim and compel the C to comply (and you'll need to be fairly specific about the failures and how they have prevented you from dealing with the claim properly)
2. the late PoC and the backdating


I'm just a little confused on what to put into this letter with the DQ's?

I understand the process a lot more clearly now though, very grateful.

I'll post my defence up here sometime this weekend to see if it's up to standard