PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

CEL allocation to the small court
Gwimweeper
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 13:34
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 19 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,115



Hi all,

Over the past few months I have used this forum to good use, gleaning as much info and ammo as I can.

I am at the stage where I have successfully allocated to small claims track and have changed the court to my local town centre.

My questions related to providing evidence to both the court and CEL, and will follow shortly.

It's ordered that the claimant (CEL) does by 4pm 23 August 2018 pay court trial fee £25 or file a properly completed application, otherwise will be struck out.

Now by 4pm 18 July CEL must provide both the court and I copies of all documents to rely on (bit sceptical as I never received anything from CEL previously in the run up to this point which they should have when at the Acknowledgment of Service stages).

To the same tune I must provide my evidence by the same date/time. I have no problem with this, but my question is. My evidence names the person that did use/park & drive my car at the time. Will CEL then try to claim from this person after? Even though they were actually entitled to park in the car park at the time, they will just be subject to the same ordeal I have gone through to date. Even though they were legitimately parked (which is why this whole case is a farce, CEL just see £££).

Should I send evidence immediately or wait till nearer the cut off date?

If I do not receive anything from CEL, I assume I contact the court the day after the 18th July and state I have not received anything, and ask for it to be struck out?

Thank you in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 6)
Advertisement
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 13:34
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 13:36
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,196
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



If you've submitted a good defence, CEL will save the £25.

Why do you have to name the driver in the WS? Just refer to them as 'the driver' and state categorically it wasn't you.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gwimweeper
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 15:15
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 19 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,115



My evidence is in e-mail format that "the driver" was attending an interview at the property of which the car park belongs too. Therefore had every right to use the particular car park.

(The longer story is that, the booking machine for car reg, was input incorrectly by the driver by a single letter. At the time and to this day the company that own the building and car park are of no help and just refer us to the parking management, and no help what so ever).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 15:47
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



So just redact the drivers identity from the email in the same way the PPC's redact commercial info when they enter contracts in to their WS. You can do this by printing the email, covering the drivers identity with ink and scanning the result.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 06:57
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yep, exatly as above

You have no reason to disclose the drivers identity, the PPC cannot demand it, and you can state categorically it was not you. They cant clal you a liar, not directly, so would have to adduce other evidnce to provve you are

All academic. They wont go to qa hearing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gwimweeper
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 07:05
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 19 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,115



Thank You for your replies,

I'm comfortable going to Court, but also believe it won't go that far.

Just grateful for the advice that I can actually redact the original e-mail, without it becoming "tampered with" and inadmissible!

Cheers biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 07:52
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



This isnt criminal court. Its blaance of probbailities. Plus, youre not using the email to prove that a SPECIFIC person was authorised, with the specific being important - youre proving the driver was authorised, and as the PPC dont know who that is, the identigty of the driver isnt important.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:21
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here