CEL PCN Claimform - Tenerife Buildings, Station Road, South Gosforth, Newcastle NE3 1QD *** Claim Discontinued***

[ericsbrother]

well if you had read anything about CEL you will know they are probably the most dishonest parking co going and their NTK is so badly written it creates no liability to pay them  whatsoever. They dont let this worry them though, they are keen to sue people but will never attend court based upon thier court claim because they might not come out the same month.

 

So what ahve they sent you so far? Generally you can ignore it all up to the court claim but knowing the wheres and whens will help us to help you.

 

so is the land close to you and can you get down there to take some pictures of the entrance from the public highway and any signs there, piccies of any different signs round the car park and a picture of any poles with cameras on, parking meters etc.

 

They havent cretaed ANY liability, let alone keeper liability so sending lies though the post doesnt change that fact or the law that supports it. Likewise there are no legally binding additional costs and they know that as well.

 

Dont bother responding until they send a proper LBA or county court claim form with a case number on it.

 

If they do that before you ahve had a chance to get the other info we ask for please tell us adn we will advise you waht to do next

[ericsbrother]

so as said, the NTK is bog roll and makes no attempt to comply with the law. The image you post up shows no warnings about being offered terms to aprk as you eneter the land and  it is not clear that the land is actually separate from the public highway other than by the continuous DYL so if you take other case law into account it is public highway and you cant park!

 

The signs scattered about we need to see so we can read every word on them. Also I note that they appear on some buildings and not others so is there more than one landlord/occupier with the rights to offer contracts I wonder. In other words I suspect the CEL dont ahve the right to manage all of the land and as you cant tell what bits they are alolowed to run riot over the law will say none of it.

Get photographing and make a pan of the site and note every road marking and position of each sign with reference to the buildings ( get their street numbers as well), you will need this later

[ericsbrother]

Ok, big sign at entrance isnt a contract, it is an "invitation to treat. the other signs that could be contract say uou owe them £100 of you breach any of the conditions but them dont actually list any contractual terms. Even the 20 minute bit is ambiguous as you are allowed to renegotiate those terms with the shopkeepers and the ANPR wont know about or overrule the conversation you had with anyone in the shops even if you didnt actually have one of the supposes permits.

 

As already said, the NTK is just garbage and doesnt fulfil any of the requirements to create ANY liability, let alone a keeper liability..

 

I wouldnt be appealing this at all, CEL dont give a stuff and how they are still members of the BPA eludes me. Trading Standarsd took them to court but fouled up on the service of their paperwork so CEL got off a criminal charge and that is why they arent actually keen on going to a court hearing even though they are keen on starting a fight they cant win, tey hope to bully you into paying up, which is an abuse of the court process that has been commented on by judges but again the MoJ havent come down on it.

[ericsbrother]

read up on dca's and you will soon stop sweating. they cant do anything becasue they dont own the debt, have no agency and generally dont have the legal permissions to collect money anyway so if the debt was real and you paid them instead of the debtor you will still owe the money if they do a runner!

now ask yourself another question- as CEL have used para 9 of the POFA to demand money they cnat ask for more than the amoutn specified in the NTK so where does the sum of £170 come from? anser- they made it up in the hope that you dont know the law and then they earn a few quid for telling lies. They make it less than £200 or people wouldnt pay them at all. the idea is that people who dont know better pay up before the amount goes up again and they thern think that dca's are bailiffs and they will end up having their furniture removed.

 

On britain's Parking hell last night there was these old codgers who got caught out and they were thinking of selling their belongings to apy the parking co to avoid prison! why on eathn did they think that possible, this isnt the 1800's but it shows the fears these bandits like to keep going so they make their money

 

Ignore them and if you get worried ignore that feeling as well

Edited September 6, 2019 by ericsbrother

[ericsbrother]

nothing to worry about at all, it is a threatogram dressed up as a worthless piece of paper. Note they say their client is ZZPS and who are they to tell anyone anything? they are just paid letter writers so if they are the client.

They will recommend something. Well I recommend that you dont whistle whilst eating custard. Now do you owe my cat £170 for saying that? Legally it has the same weight.

[ericsbrother]

the lba doesnt fulfil the requirements of PAP but that will be a minor issue as you arent going to lose anyway.

Now CEL will probably fail to send the details of the claim in time but your hubby still has to do his bit or they win by default.

 

It doesnt matter that you were driving as this is not going to be admitted, ther main thing is they havent followed the POFA to create a keeper liability and their usual letters fail to be good enough to create ANY liability under the POFA so use of court is an abuse of process to boot.

 

They will drop the claim when it becomes apparent that it wil be robustly defended but until then hubby has to follow the rules and they are hoping he doesnt

[ericsbrother]

they will have snet the details by the time you need to send off you outline defence. If thye havent it is easy to compose somehting that states they have failed to show a cause for action against you by failing to submit the details of their claim as per CPR (whatever number) AND IN ANY CASE there was no contract offered to breach etc

[ericsbrother]

This is the problem with doing a google search for cut and paste examples.

I would never use this as it is outdated and no-one ever talks like this, use palin english where possible

[ericsbrother]

basic content OK though

[ericsbrother]

with CEL just saying that no keeper liability exists and their letters failed to creat ANY liability whatsoever under the POFA 2012.

In any case it is denied that any contract was offered at the time so no cause for action against the defendant or any other person.

 

You had a limited time to do this so fire off this or something pronto if you havent already.

I did say the sontent of your suggested defence was OK just write it in plain english but you seem to want to tie yourself in knots over this.

You are not a lawyer so noone expects you to speak in Latin or old French, you wont get clobbered for it

[ericsbrother]

 

your explanation of events above makes no difference to a contract between you and CEL and  you point about CEL not making reference to the businesses it serves there is immaterial if they have a contract with the landowner for all of that development as they shops wil be tenants and have no say.

The main ppint about the signage is that it isnt a contract. no offer and acceptance due to illegality of signage andthe lack of need to consider and accept the terms on the other signs

Edited February 19, 2020 by ericsbrother

[ericsbrother]

Boots or whoever just rent the shop, they ahve no interest in the land. The ontract CEL have MUST be with the landowner so that is why you ask to see the contract between them and the landowner  If they have a contract with someone else then they dotn have the right to do anything and cannot perform to the contract they are offering you. the lack of a way of inputting your car reg to get an extension also voids the contract as there is no mention of an alternative or penalty for NOT BEING ABLE to do this

It doesnt matter that the council arent going to take action, doesnt stop the act being illegal. they dont arrest everyone who drops litter but doing so is still illegal.

 

these are points you need to understand, it is not about parking at all, it is about offer, acceptane and the breach of a contract. We are saying there was no contract becasue they cnat legaly offer you anything

 

read up a lot more on parking and it all becomes less scary

[ericsbrother]

If you want to represent another person then it is 1 witness( and you ask  to be allowed to be a lay rep). If you are both speaking it is 2 witnesses

[ericsbrother]

they dont want to pay the allocation fee knowing they are just chucking money away so hope you are dumb enough to fall for this.

 

Now if they were serious they would have used the correct channels to offer mediation, not a sneaky offer of a natter on the phone where no-one in authority has a hand on their reins.

Ignore it completely.

 

I got offered the chance to settle out of court with them the day after I gave them a spanking cos they didn't turn up

. they are just not the sort of people you would leave your silverware out with.

 

 

[ericsbrother]

so now your local court will look at their diary and tell you that the case has been transferred to them and a date has been set sometime in the (probably distant) future. that court may well also use its case amnagement powers to order CEL to put up or shut up and possibly ask for details of your defence if it is a bit vague or you are going for a costs order

[ericsbrother]

when talking about liability make sure that you point out in the strongest terms that CEL's NTK is NOT POFA compliant and even fails to create ANY liability by their failure to use the key phrases of the POFA to create a liability.

 

Quote their NTK and show why it is cobblers with reference to the para of the Act you rely on.

 

I know you have this a point 12 but move it up to sit with the relevant points rather than being isolated.

context is important, your WS is telling a story as well as reeling out facts.

 

Point 8,

the additional costs are only applicable to the driver and where a keeper liability is created under the POFA only the original sum on the NTK is enforceable.

 

Courts ( Southampton and Lewes plus others) have decided that the extra additional charges are indeed extravagant as they represent more than XX% of the actual contractual charge. This invites you judge to use their formula rather than work in isolation. they will thank you for that, they like "persuasive" cases to refer to.

 

ppints 14-16. Dont tell the court its business, this looks like commentary rather than your WS so reword it and shorten these points and drop the bit about what parliament is minded to do at some point in the future, you are dealing with a problem with the law as it is.

 

So get all of your supporting docs and images together and you will be good to go.

Do not rely on their pictures of signs, CEL are happy to use a computer to change the reality to fit in with thier claims of that particular day and use stock images when they cant lie.

[ericsbrother]

WS is OK,

I would have tried to say why the sign at entrance is an invitation to treat and that the small signs would be the contract but you dont need to consider them as the bare licence to park existed by that point.

 

same with the 20 mins max stay not offering anything extra, see if you can find examples from other court reports to take with you to help illustarte these points ( shouldnt need them but better to ahve than to not have)

 

also talk abotu the lack of any indication as to what patches of land CEL have so called management rights over as their is no contiguous land that is obviously belonging to one landlord.

 

As for planning, CEL should have applied for PP for their cameras and signs under 2 pieces of legislation.

The are not exempt as they arent CCTV attached to a building and nor are the signs informational, they are advertisements of a unilateral contact ( well supposed to be)

 

Take copies of POFA with you as well so you can quiote the relevant paragraphs you refer to in point 13.

It is an absolute and the judgement of DDJ Harvey at Lewes has confirmed there are limits to costs that would apply IF the driver  was the defendant and the additioanl costs were specifically mentioned in the contract.

 

Looking at the accounts of Melbourn Estates it looks like they have a lease on the property and not the freehold

( they could own the freehold and lease it out but their income and assets doesnt reflect that)

 

so who signed the contract on behalf of the landowner?

Can we see the signatures when you get sight of this from CEL

[ericsbrother]

it will be having paperwork to show firm examples of your argument.

In an ideal world these go in your bundle

but if you take copies on the day to hand out you will usually be allowed as they arent actually part of your WS, j

ust save the courts time having to look up stuff ( judges dont like having to do this, after all that si the litigants job other than arguments over points of law)

 

Info about Melbourn Estates is not somehting to get bogged down on other than to see who signed off the contact as they have only 2 employees, the 2 directors who are married to each other.

 

Seeing the sig will help us determine if Ashley Cohen is playing one of his fantasy games where he pretends to work for the Co-Op or is a solicitor and so forth.

 

I recognise his moniker even when he tries to disguise it

[ericsbrother]

you can ask the court for your costs under the unreasonable behaviour protocol.

A simple letter to the court asking for 5 hours of litigant in person research costs @£19.50 per hour ad whatever it cost you to copy paperwork etc. Ask for this under CPR 27.14.2(g)

The worst that can happen is that your request is ignored so worth the price of a stamp.

 

You also have a case for suing CEL for breach of the GDPR ( several things they got wrong).

Write to tham and and ask for £500 damages under Vihal Hall v Google and VCS v Phillip and then you have another 6 years to think about whether to sue them or not.

 

again, just the price of a stamp and you don't have to carry on if you dont want to but parking co's have been known to pay out to avoid court again and a proper costs order inc damages. A solicitor sued and got £1500