CEL allocation to the small court |
CEL allocation to the small court |
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. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 13:34
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 13:36
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 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 |
|
|
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). |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:05 |