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
    • Wussell
    • By Wussell 19th Apr 17, 10:33 AM
    • 20Posts
    • 6Thanks
    Wussell
    CCBC Letter
    • #1
    • 19th Apr 17, 10:33 AM
    CCBC Letter 19th Apr 17 at 10:33 AM
    Left it to the last minute as usual.
    Had a letter from County Court Business Centre regarding an ( unfair) parking charge from last year.
    This is in my partner's name and we decided to let the whole thing ride until now when we don't seem to have a choice as the CD are involved.
    I've read lots on this forum but am a bit confused as to our next step. I've formulated a defence based on it being in her name as the R K but I was actually driving. Also, the address of the car park stated does not correspond to the actual address. Surely that cant be right?
    What to do now? TIA. Wussell
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th Apr 17, 11:20 AM
    • 14,041 Posts
    • 22,060 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 19th Apr 17, 11:20 AM
    • #2
    • 19th Apr 17, 11:20 AM
    I've formulated a defence based on it being in her name as the R K but I was actually driving.
    Wow, you're so close to disaster here. You need to rescue this from the flames.

    First off, and most importantly - have you acknowledged service of the court papers? Did you leave the defence box totally blank? What was the date of issue of the papers?

    Which parking company please?

    More questions to follow - once we can have a base to work from.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Wussell
    • By Wussell 19th Apr 17, 11:31 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Wussell
    • #3
    • 19th Apr 17, 11:31 AM
    Doh!
    • #3
    • 19th Apr 17, 11:31 AM
    Thanks for your swift intervention Umkomaas Can't remember name of parking co as im at work and dont have paperwork with me but it is a member of trade body.
    We have not acknowledged anything yet. No correspondence has been sent POP DATE of issue (I believe) was the 7th April.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th Apr 17, 11:38 AM
    • 14,041 Posts
    • 22,060 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 19th Apr 17, 11:38 AM
    • #4
    • 19th Apr 17, 11:38 AM
    For now, just get that acknowledgement of service (AOS) off urgently. Do not put anything into the defence box - NOTHING (defence comes later). Getting the AOS off will extend your time by a further 14 to develop your defence. Well actually it's your wife's defence. Nominating the driver at this stage is too late, proceedings have commenced.

    Please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 which explains the whole small claims court process set in the context of private parking charges. There are many defences linked there which you can plagiarise (provided they make sense in relation to your wife's case).

    When you've got the information on which PPC, please come back and we'll help get you started on the right track.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Wussell
    • By Wussell 19th Apr 17, 12:28 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Wussell
    • #5
    • 19th Apr 17, 12:28 PM
    Ppc
    • #5
    • 19th Apr 17, 12:28 PM
    I think the PPC is called Parking Enforcement or Civil Enforcement Ltd or similar.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Apr 17, 12:32 PM
    • 48,965 Posts
    • 62,454 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 19th Apr 17, 12:32 PM
    • #6
    • 19th Apr 17, 12:32 PM
    If it is CEL they are easy to see off even at this stage - and you will find DOZENS of example defences to crib from, none of which have continued (no hearings, no losses, when faced with a forum defence).

    Make sure the MCOL acknowledgement of service is done in her name today or tomorrow (this is URGENT). AOS buys her another fortnight to submit a defence copied from the others here and scrutinised first on this thread. We will help but she needs to do the AOS online on the Gvt Gateway.

    There is a link to a simple guide on how to do the AOS, in post #2 of 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST' a sticky thread near the top of the forum, where example defences are too.
    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.

    • Wussell
    • By Wussell 19th Apr 17, 1:25 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Wussell
    • #7
    • 19th Apr 17, 1:25 PM
    • #7
    • 19th Apr 17, 1:25 PM
    Also, the PPC followed up the CCBC thing with another letter giving (again, I believe, still at work) details of claim if that has any bearing.
    Co-incidently, the exact same letter arrived on the same day addressed to partner but contained details of another person who attracted their attention at the same car park. I'm now concerned that that person is in the same position as we are.
    • Wussell
    • By Wussell 19th Apr 17, 5:43 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Wussell
    • #8
    • 19th Apr 17, 5:43 PM
    • #8
    • 19th Apr 17, 5:43 PM
    PPC is defo CEL.
    MCOL stage 1 completed as per instructions.
    Where to next?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Apr 17, 6:39 PM
    • 48,965 Posts
    • 62,454 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 19th Apr 17, 6:39 PM
    • #9
    • 19th Apr 17, 6:39 PM
    Back to re-read the example defences NEWBIES thread and to search the forum for 'CEL defence' to find the dozens of others to crib from.
    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.

    • Wussell
    • By Wussell 20th Apr 17, 10:48 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Wussell
    Knowledge is king
    Now that I've started to read this forum and begin to understand the system a little better it's like a fog has lifted on this awful practice of terrorising people out of excessive amounts of money.
    It seems to me that the whole operation is run by unscrupulous opportunists who rely on landowners, businesses and the general public's lack of awareness and trust in "officialdom".
    I hope when our little case is settled, I can give a little back by spreading the word.
    I don't know if the experienced contributors to this forum receive any kind of reward but they should all receive a knighthood!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th Apr 17, 10:52 AM
    • 14,041 Posts
    • 22,060 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Now that I've started to read this forum and begin to understand the system a little better it's like a fog has lifted on this awful practice of terrorising people out of excessive amounts of money.
    It seems to me that the whole operation is run by unscrupulous opportunists who rely on landowners, businesses and the general public's lack of awareness and trust in "officialdom".
    I hope when our little case is settled, I can give a little back by spreading the word.
    I don't know if the experienced contributors to this forum receive any kind of reward but they should all receive a knighthood!
    Originally posted by Wussell
    Your fog has definitely lifted. What a great summary of the issue - and an understanding of why we give so much of our time helping people who have been sledgehammered by this money swallowing, out of control, juggernaut.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Wussell
    • By Wussell 21st Apr 17, 5:37 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Wussell
    Guilt
    Just heard from a friend who's wife received an invoice from the same PPC having parked in the same car park. She insisted on paying the £60 asked for as the path of least resistance.
    It's not nice hearing that from someone who works hard for minimum wages and has been conned out of a not insubstantial sum of money.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Apr 17, 6:07 PM
    • 14,041 Posts
    • 22,060 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    It's not nice hearing that from someone who works hard for minimum wages and has been conned out of a not insubstantial sum of money.
    It's why we keep coming back day after day to try to prevent this happening!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Apr 17, 12:48 AM
    • 48,965 Posts
    • 62,454 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Here is a poster who has also seen the light, found a few CEL defence examples and put one together:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5637352

    Generic and easy to defend. Get that submitted and you should hear no more.
    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.

    • Wussell
    • By Wussell 23rd Apr 17, 9:58 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Wussell
    Nearly there.
    Thanks Couponmad,
    I've read a few now and prepared a draft defence that I will finalise for posting on here Monday evening. Hopefully it will pass muster and possibly even inspire others to defend themselves against this insidious practice.
    • Wussell
    • By Wussell 25th Apr 17, 12:05 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Wussell
    First attempt
    I hope this is ok for my first attempt. I've relied on a bit of cutting and pasting so I can get going. I will be able to correct any issues this Thursday for final submission on Friday, all things being equal.

    Claim no. ​********
    Issue date.​** ***** 2017

    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Ltd v ***** *****
    Defence Statement.
    I am ***** *****and am the defendant of the above claim and the Registered Keeper of vehicle *******.
    The claim Form ******** issued for the claimant is based on an erroneous and spurious claim for breach of contract that the defendant could not have entered into. I deny that I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons.

    1. This case is clearly distinguishable from Parking Eye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 (The Beavis Case) which was dependant on an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA CoP (Code of Practice) 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. None of this applies in this material case.

    2. The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol

    a) The claimant has not issued a compliant “Letter Before County Court Claim”.
    b) The Claimant is a serial litigant, issuing a large number of speculative and identical “Draft Particulars”. The poorly prepared documents contain a minimal amount of information, insufficient to back up any claim.
    c) The original “Parking Charge Notice PCN” dated 11th July 2017 relies on speculative information and shows photographs that are too small to be legible or discerned.


    3. I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    a) Absent is 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 “Keeper Liability” provisions.
    b) The claimant has not identified the driver. Harry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort”.
    c) The claimant has failed to properly identify the land on which the alleged parking occurred, contrary to PoFA Schedule 4 7.2 (a)
    d) 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 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £326.41 for outstanding debt and damages.



    4. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    a) 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.
    b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    c) 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 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    d) 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.

    5. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (b) The sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (c) There is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    6. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed that Civil Enforcement 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.

    7. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    a) 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.

    b) 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.

    c) The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    a)​failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 7th April 2017
    b)​not got planning permission from the local council to use the ANPR machine or erect their signage in the car park.

    The vague Particulars of The 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 believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Signed

    Date
    • Wussell
    • By Wussell 25th Apr 17, 12:08 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Wussell
    Ha! Wrong date...
    • Wussell
    • By Wussell 2nd May 17, 7:16 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Wussell
    2nd attempt
    is this good enough to post? Needs to go off tomorrow to be certain of complying with dates.

    In the County Court,
    Claim no. ********
    Issue date. ******** 2017

    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Ltd v ***** *****
    Defence Statement.
    I am ***** ***** of ** **********, ***********, *** *** and am the defendant of the above claim and the Registered Keeper of vehicle ******* and will say as follows;
    The claim Form ******** issued for the claimant is based on an erroneous and spurious claim for breach of contract that the defendant could not have entered into. I deny that I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons.

    1. This case is clearly distinguishable from Parking Eye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 (The Beavis Case) which was dependant on an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA CoP (Code of Practice) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £100 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    2. The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol

    a) The claimant has not issued a compliant “Letter Before County Court Claim”.
    b) The Claimant is a serial litigant, issuing a large number of speculative and identical “Draft Particulars”. The poorly prepared documents contain a minimal amount of information, insufficient to back up any claim.
    c) The original “Parking Charge Notice PCN” dated ********** relies on speculative information and shows photographs that are too small to be legible or discerned.


    3. I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    a) Absent is 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 “Keeper Liability” provisions.
    b) The claimant has not identified the driver. Harry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort”.
    c) The claimant has failed to properly identify the land on which the alleged parking occurred, contrary to PoFA Schedule 4 7.2 (a)
    d) 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 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £326.41 for outstanding debt and damages.



    4. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    a) 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.
    b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    c) 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 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    d) 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.

    5. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (a) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (b) The sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (c) There is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    6. The Claimant has failed to identify the site of the alleged parking correctly. No car park exists at the given address. 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.

    7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement 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.

    8. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    a) 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.

    b) 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.

    c) The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on ** ****** 2017
    b) Not got planning permission from the local council to use the ANPR machine or erect their signage in the car park.

    The vague Particulars of The 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 believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Signed

    Date
    • Wussell
    • By Wussell 3rd May 17, 10:43 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Wussell
    Defence sent, should I email?
    Posted defence today first class signed for (although I understand some larger organisations that receive high volumes of this sort of post don't sign for every package).
    Would it also be prudent to email it too?
    • parist
    • By parist 3rd May 17, 11:10 AM
    • 51 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    parist
    I also posted 1st class registered due to deadline approaching.

    Also sent PDF via email after 4pm yesterday and it has shown up on the mcol for this case as "Your defence was received on 03/05/2017"

    So yes, do send it.

    Good luck!
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

97Posts Today

1,839Users online

Martin's Twitter