Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Molts
    • By Molts 13th Jan 18, 6:37 PM
    • 105Posts
    • 232Thanks
    Molts
    Small victory snatched from the jaws of defeat - CEL/WH
    • #1
    • 13th Jan 18, 6:37 PM
    Small victory snatched from the jaws of defeat - CEL/WH 13th Jan 18 at 6:37 PM
    Firstly sincere apologies for adding more drama to you heavily overworked but wonderful forumites! I have done what I can off forum but using the plethora of information available on here but now I am well above my pay grade but I think we have a chance to give CEL a good old spanking if played right. I will cut a long story as short as humanely possible,

    Overview

    D approached me via PM off a Facebook forum following concerns about the amount of conflicting advice he was receiving. D had received a judgement in default following a CEL PCN for an alleged overstay in a KFC car park. D ignored then moved hence default CCJ. The process followed the usual shoddy format with CEL handing over to DC to WH culminating in the usual template PoC signed by the "legal expert" we all know and love, Ashley Cohen.

    D payed set aside fee and attended court with a hand written FMOTL style statement written by his "crazy friend" (D's description not mine!). Hearing did not go well but D did scrape an adjournment with the General Order stating that the D had failed to establish the judgement was irregular but CEL had to provide photographic evidence as the D claimed he had never seen any. The order also stated that the D would agree to pay the judgement on receipt of substantial evidence from CEL. This is where I picked the case up and based on this I felt we had little or no chance of success.

    To add to the complication the D is not actually the D but her spouse. The actual D was heavily pregnant and wanted nothing to do with the case. The Judge, however, kindly let him represent her in absence and submit written documents and evidence although would not be allowed to speak. Armed with this we sent the D's representative (DR) to court armed with a draft defence and witness statement (to follow). DR did not win but did not lose either! The case was once again adjourned with the order stating the D must submit a full defence and signed statement of truth with the C given the opportunity to respond if advised to do so. No mention of "failing to establish judgement". I was pretty happy with the result in all and believe it gives us a real chance of getting this returned to defence stage or possibly even struck out.

    I could not think of a better place to come and ask for assistance to arm the D with a solid defence than here after being an avid follower for some time now.

    Timescales
    D to be submitted by February 13th
    C to respond by February 27th
    Hearing date March 15th

    I have convinced the DR to respond directly as I know 3rd party representation can be difficult but please understand he feels even more out of his depth than I do. I sincerely thank you all in advance for any assistance provided.
Page 1
    • Molts
    • By Molts 13th Jan 18, 6:40 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 232 Thanks
    Molts
    • #2
    • 13th Jan 18, 6:40 PM
    Draft Defence
    • #2
    • 13th Jan 18, 6:40 PM
    In the County Court at Middlesbrough

    Between:

    Civil Enforcement Limited V D


    Claim Number:


    I am xxx, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle xxxx. I currently reside at xxxx.

    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

    1. The Claim Form issued on the xx April 2017 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221; (Claimant!!!8217;s Legal Representative)!!!8221;.

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

    a. There was no complaint !!!8220;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8221;, under the Practice Direction.

    b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of !!!8220;draft particulars!!!8221;. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

    c. The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information.

    d. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about !!!8211; why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the !!!8220;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8221; should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction !!!8211; Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to !!!8220;take stock!!!8221;, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

    i. !!!8220;Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute

    ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure

    iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and

    iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided!!!8221;.

    e. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted

    f. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars with Practice Directions and include at least the following information:

    i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
    ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
    v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    vii. If interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

    g. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for a reasonable time to file another defence.


    3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict !!!8220;keeper liability!!!8221; provisions.

    a. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a !!!8220;relevant obligation!!!8221; and !!!8220;relevant contract!!!8221;, fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper.

    4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that 50 !!!8220;legal representative!!!8217;s costs were incurred.

    5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay 85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage !!!8220;contract!!!8221;, none of this applies in this material case.

    6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case

    a. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs

    b. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant

    c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver !!!8211; this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum
    ii. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as !!!8220;compensation!!!8221; from by an authorised party using the premises as intended
    iii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant
    iv. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

    d. BPA CoP breaches !!!8211; this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    i. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning
    ii. The sum pursued exceeds 100
    iii. There is/was no compliant landowner contract

    7. The Claimant, in paragraph 5 of their Particulars of Claim, cites Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2000] 4 All ER 169 to evidence that the Defendant agreed to an alleged contract to park due to reading (or should have read), and therefore agreeing to, the terms & conditions of the site signage. The Defendant denies this claim entirely. It is clear from the cited case that there was no dispute to the fact, indeed it was common ground, that Ms Vine was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. The Defendant in this case is defending the claim as the registered keeper of the vehicle, not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the defendant was in fact driving the vehicle at the relevant time.

    8. No standing !!!8211; this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    a. It is believed Civil Enforcement Ltd do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    9. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    10. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    11. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car nearly 2 years later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that a registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

    !!!8226; Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 07 April 2017.
    !!!8226; Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste !!!8220;Particulars!!!8221; of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis/Vine v Waltham Forest) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
    Last edited by Molts; 16-01-2018 at 8:38 PM. Reason: Spelling
    • Molts
    • By Molts 13th Jan 18, 6:45 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 232 Thanks
    Molts
    • #3
    • 13th Jan 18, 6:45 PM
    SA submitted at 2nd adjournment hearing
    • #3
    • 13th Jan 18, 6:45 PM
    IN THE MIDDLESBROUGH TEESIDE COMBINED COURT !!!8211; COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxx

    BETWEEN:

    CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD
    (CLAIMANT)
    -AND-

    xxx
    (DEFENDANT)

    SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Matters

    Service of documents to an incorrect address

    1. I am led to believe that this is a problem which is particularly prevalent in cases concerning alleged debt claims. I understand that there has been a recent attempt by the government to try to address this situation.

    2. In announcing a consultation & information campaign to help protect consumers (23rd December 2016), Justice Minister Sir Oliver Heald is quoted as saying
    !!!8220;It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments.
    In the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.!!!8221;

    3. He also made particular reference to private parking companies.
    !!!8220;And the Department for Communities and Local Government will be taking further steps in due course to tackle poor practice by private parking companies.!!!8221;

    4. My current address, in which I have lived since December 2015, would be easily accessible to anyone who exercised due diligence in tracing the same. I would expect a professional company to do so, particularly in the event of issuing a County Court claim.


    Driver/Registered Keeper

    5. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduced the concept of transference of liability, under certain circumstances, from the vehicle driver to the registered keeper. To do so, a Claimant would need to adhere to the strict rules as outlined in Schedule 4 of that Act.

    6. If, however, the identity of the driver is known, the Claimant can abandon the strictures imposed by the Act & instead choose to pursue the claim via common law contract rather than legislation.

    7. It is well established that, in English civil law, there is no presumption that the registered keeper is necessarily the same person as the driver. Mr. Henry Michael Greenslade, until recently the lead adjudicator for the British Parking Association (BPA) independent appeal body, !!!8216;POPLA!!!8217;, & a barrister of many years standing (Gray!!!8217;s Inn & the Bars of Ireland, King!!!8217;s Inn), stated as much in his last (2015) POPLA annual report.

    8. ( https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2 )


    9. At page 13 of the annual report

    !!!8220;However keeper information is obtained, there is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.!!!8221;

    10. This is further evidenced by the decisions in many court parking cases where, when Elliot v Loake [1982] Crim LR 36 (a criminal case where there was abundant forensic & circumstantial evidence which linked the defendant in that case to the fact that he was the driver at the material time), & Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453 (an employer firm being held vicariously liable for the act of its employee) are cited, they are regularly disallowed as not being relevant.

    11. In the particular case cited by the Claimant, Civil Enforcement Ltd. (CEL), that being Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 (5 April 2000), & per my draft defence, there was no dispute as to the identity of the driver in that case, & so is irrelevant to the instant case.

    12. This being the current position in English law, it is clearly not always in the best interests of either the driver or the registered keeper to reveal the identity of the driver at the relevant time.

    13. Many persons other than the registered keeper have access to & can drive the vehicle involved in this claim.

    14. Therefore the Defendant reserves the undoubted right not to reveal the identity of the driver at the time in question.



    The Defendant!!!8217;s argument


    15. The Defendant has submitted a proposed draft defence, outlining some of the points which would have been raised to counter the allegations made by the Claimant, given the opportunity to do so.

    16. But the Defendant has also seen anecdotal evidence of how the Claimant abuses Civil Procedure Rules. Detailed Particulars of Claim are often not sent to the Defendant on time (if at all), there is no certificate of service of same filed at court, etc.

    17. The Defendant would also like the opportunity to investigate this side of the court proceedings as well.

    18. The above points, together with anomalies concerning the Claimant!!!8217;s original notice to registered keeper (which, if so, renders the notice as not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, thereby negating transfer of liability from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper), plus the Defendant!!!8217;s prompt application to set aside judgement as soon as the Defendant became aware of the default judgement, in the Defendant!!!8217;s honest opinion easily satisfy the requirements of a set aside of the default judgement per Civil Procedure Rules 27.11 & 39.3.

    19. The Defendant feels that there is certainly a viable defence to the Claimant!!!8217;s claim, & so respectfully requests that the court allows the Defendant the ability to do so in the interests of justice.
    Last edited by Molts; 16-01-2018 at 8:38 PM. Reason: Spelling
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jan 18, 12:56 AM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,062 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 14th Jan 18, 12:56 AM
    • #4
    • 14th Jan 18, 12:56 AM
    Well done in getting it this far.

    A typo:

    Middlesborough - should be Middlesbrough...

    And I would add something to the defence that says something like:

    In the event that this Claimant now discontinues its claim, this would be indicative of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant from start to finish, and as such, the Defendant asks the court to exercise its case management powers and grant an Order for costs on the indemnity basis. This to include all costs, including but not limited to the set aside application fee of 255, since filing a claim to an old address (with no attempt made whatsoever, to ascertain the current address of the Defendant) cannot be considered 'good service'.

    Further and in addition to the conduct regarding the lack of good service of the claim, the purported cause of action was meritless and misconceived. Given the fact that this Claimant does not rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, and cannot claim 'keeper liability' under that law due to the wording of its notice, the action of pursuing a registered keeper with no evidence as to who was driving on the material date, is vexatious and wholly unreasonable. From the outset, this Claimant's claim was without merit and had no prospects of success.

    Should the claim continue to trial, the Defendant submits that, for any or all of the reasons stated above, the Claimant is not entitled to the relief in the sum claimed, or at all, and invites the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety, and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible pursuant to CPR 27.14.
    I am worried that the real Defendant may not realise that she is gong to have to attend this next hearing (if CEL do not discontinue) because getting special permission for her OH to appear with her evidence at a set aside hearing because she was heavily pregnant, does not mean that she can swerve the actual hearing of the facts. He could be her lay rep and speak, but she'd have to sit in too, unless I am wrong and the Judge has confirmed in writing that the OH can appear instead of her at the actual hearing too.

    Doubt it? Also surely it gives them less chance of a win, she should be there as an honest witness even if he speaks for her. The case could be lost on that alone and no assumption should be made that the Judge will extend the same allowance (unless the Judge has?).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 14-01-2018 at 1:03 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • charitynjw
    • By charitynjw 14th Jan 18, 9:54 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    charitynjw
    • #5
    • 14th Jan 18, 9:54 AM
    • #5
    • 14th Jan 18, 9:54 AM
    Hi Coupon-mad

    Just thought I'd introduce myself.
    I had a small input into this, giving Molts & the Defendant's OH some meagre assistance in snatching this one from the jaws of death.
    Molts has done a sterling job so far.
    Hopefully, with you guys on board, this will send CEL scuttling back to under whichever rock they came from.
    Last edited by charitynjw; 14-01-2018 at 12:10 PM.
    • Molts
    • By Molts 14th Jan 18, 2:50 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 232 Thanks
    Molts
    • #6
    • 14th Jan 18, 2:50 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Jan 18, 2:50 PM
    That's awesome C-M, thanks. I'll pretty much use that verbatim and make adjustments elsewhere for any repetition if that's okay?

    I am worried that the real Defendant may not realise that she is gong to have to attend this next hearing
    Thankfully the D+OH had a beautiful baby born in December around the time of the last hearing so I am happy to confirm the D will be attending. And, yes, you were right the Judge had made no mention of the D's non attendance until now.
    • Molts
    • By Molts 14th Jan 18, 2:53 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 232 Thanks
    Molts
    • #7
    • 14th Jan 18, 2:53 PM
    • #7
    • 14th Jan 18, 2:53 PM
    I had a small input into this
    I admire your modesty but Charity has been a massive help! In fact we would not be at this stage without him. He has a lot more experience on the legal side and wrote the SA.

    I am delighted we found him again after he had some technical issues.
    • Molts
    • By Molts 14th Jan 18, 3:53 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 232 Thanks
    Molts
    • #8
    • 14th Jan 18, 3:53 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Jan 18, 3:53 PM
    https://1drv.ms/i/s!AgdkV4ccTSEJgaIpx1fODPuA2ecFJQ

    This is a redacted copy of the latest order which specifically states the D must attend (breathes sigh of relief).

    With reference to point 1 it looks as though the Judge wishes to tackle signage specifically and expects the D to provide documentary evidence of the signage at the location at the time of the parking event (March 2016). The signage has changed since although not particularly improved just reduced free period of parking from 90 minutes to 60 minutes.

    My question is is it reasonable to expect the D to have such evidence to provide or is it something we can request from CEL and any failure to provide be used against them?

    Street View seems to jump from 2014 to 2017, nothing in between.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jan 18, 7:06 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,062 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 14th Jan 18, 7:06 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Jan 18, 7:06 PM
    I am delighted we found him again after he had some technical issues.
    Originally posted by Molts
    Someone you know locally, or someone from this forum or pepipoo?

    My question is is it reasonable to expect the D to have such evidence to provide or is it something we can request from CEL and any failure to provide be used against them?
    It is not reasonable IMHO, to expect a registered keeper to have photos of car park signs from two years ago (how would anyone have known to take them, seeing as the car was not knowingly parked in breach?) but it is perfectly reasonable to expect the Claimant to prove what signs were there.

    It is always the Claimant's claim to prove and the burden should be with them.

    Has the driver never been identified? If so, good, because CEL cannot rely in the POFA and cannot hold keepers liable, as you know, so this needs to be clearly brought home to the Judge.

    He does seem naive if he thinks this can be heard in 30 minutes and that the only issue is likely to be signage! There are soooo many grounds in which to defend a CEL claim!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 14-01-2018 at 7:13 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 14th Jan 18, 7:07 PM
    • 9,519 Posts
    • 9,290 Thanks
    The Deep
    Not only is it unreasonable, it may well be impossible, but the PPC shpild have it on record.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Molts
    • By Molts 14th Jan 18, 9:08 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 232 Thanks
    Molts
    Someone you know locally, or someone from this forum or pepipoo?
    He is one of the more sane posters on FB fight your private parking invoice forum. I tapped him up as kept seeing sound advice from him to other members.

    Has the driver never been identified?
    No, thankfully. D is defending as RK.

    He does seem naive if he thinks this can be heard in 30 minutes and that the only issue is likely to be signage! There are soooo many grounds in which to defend a CEL claim!
    Agreed! But we are still chasing for the damn set aside to be granted here. Crazy. The D's OH stated the Judge was hard work and seemed on the side of the PPC from the off. I do not suppose the initial hand written common lawesque submission helped that. I am hoping that the order requesting a full defence implies that the Judge should consider it in full bringing POFA non-compliance and the numerous other defence points well into play.

    I'll get the D to write to CEL requesting photos of the signage from the time of the event. Should we cc the court in any correspondence at this stage?
    • charitynjw
    • By charitynjw 15th Jan 18, 12:00 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    charitynjw
    Someone you know locally, or someone from this forum or pepipoo?
    Hi Coupon-mad

    I'm also a regular poster on Legal Beagles.
    Esp, in recent times, re private parking issues.

    He is one of the more sane posters
    I'm not sure everyone would agree with this......
    Last edited by charitynjw; 15-01-2018 at 12:07 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jan 18, 12:04 AM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,062 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Which poster on Legal Beagles?

    On pepipoo I am SchoolRunMum, no need to hide usernames if you are a friend.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • charitynjw
    • By charitynjw 15th Jan 18, 12:09 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    charitynjw
    charitynjw (username)

    'ostell' also posts.

    I've been a regular on there since 2009.
    • Molts
    • By Molts 15th Jan 18, 12:21 AM
    • 105 Posts
    • 232 Thanks
    Molts
    I'm not sure everyone would agree with this......
    Well your posts are sane even if you are not!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jan 18, 11:31 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,062 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    charitynjw (username)

    'ostell' also posts.

    I've been a regular on there since 2009.
    Originally posted by charitynjw
    OK I have seen some of your posts, so welcome to MSE. Stick around.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jan 18, 11:33 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,062 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'll get the D to write to CEL requesting photos of the signage from the time of the event. Should we cc the court in any correspondence at this stage?
    No, not if just writing to ask for some evidence. Just put copies of everything into the case file.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 16th Jan 18, 12:05 PM
    • 2,140 Posts
    • 3,595 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Is CEL a member of BPA? BPA code requires meticulous record keeping, so they would have copies of all signage, records of when signage changed and how, etc. If IPC (although I think they're BPA) there will be a similar provision.


    Write to them quoting the paragraph number of the Code of Practice and request a copy of the signage on the relevant date, and a copy of all changes since (sometimes changes may indicate an acceptance that previous signage was unclear/deficient). Point out this information should be easy and inexpensive for them to produce, given their obligation to comply with paragraph x of the Code (compliance with which is mandatory and is a condition of membership)
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Molts
    • By Molts 16th Jan 18, 8:36 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 232 Thanks
    Molts
    Is CEL a member of BPA?
    Yep, they're BPA.

    Will do, thanks LoC!
    • charitynjw
    • By charitynjw 20th Jan 18, 12:41 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    charitynjw
    Any idea of the courts' current take on CEL's habit of not sending detailed PoC out per the 14 days, or not filing a certificate of service at court?
    Last edited by charitynjw; 20-01-2018 at 3:51 AM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,926Posts Today

6,756Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ah these care free days of watching #ENG score 5 goals in the first half of a World Cup match. It reminds me of... Never.

  • Then it should be. It's not some accident. It's deliberate grappling https://t.co/UxVTuUSNio

  • Penalty yes but time someone was sent off for these wrestling moves #WorldCup

  • Follow Martin