CCBC Letter

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.

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

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