CEL - Claim Form

And then to second letter to which i received the above response from Tim Hawker.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer to the recent email sent by Tim Hawker, which appears (due to his job title) to merely be a debt collector reply but also mentions court and fails to disclose any key documents relevant to the issues in this dispute. You have stated that the “FORMAL LETTER OF CLAIM” sent on the 27th October does not need to be compliant with the practice direction as you have not yet started proceedings. This therefore appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the recipient, in order to extract payment.

I'm also puzzled by your comment that your client has confirmed that it followed correct process. Unless you're in the habit of threatening legal proceedings without checking your client's case, you should have already reached this conclusion from the document trail. You should also, if the documents were already in your position, have had no difficulty to send copies as requested.

It may well be an issue receiving the keeper details from the DVLA - but keeper liability disappears if the NtK is received after the PoFA 14 day deadline (for ANPR camera tickets). Therefore, you should be discussing this with the DVLA, not me as the keeper. The NtK may well 'provide motorists 14 days to pay the reduced amount', but unfortunately it's the driver's liability, no longer the keeper's, given the late serving of the notice. I therefore suggest you contact the driver and stop processing my data (Section 10 warning under the DPA), or a formal complaint will be made to the ICO.

It does appear that an increasing number of motorists are being sent misleading information by solicitors acting for private parking firms, so I am pleased to confirm I will continue to consult online forums and your threats and misinformation will be used as evidence of your unreasonableness and failure to comply with the very basics of the Overriding Objective. I will also have no hesitation in reporting your firm to the SRA, should you attempt to mislead me further or try to dissuade me from my right to seek advice where I see fit.

I am unimpressed by your threat that, should I choose to rely on a template defense at court ''we will seek an immediate strike out''. Good luck with that - as a firm of solicitors you are well aware that your first duty is to the court and there is nothing wrong with a consumer seeking assistance to write responses to baseless template allegations from a company with whom I have no contract. A consumer can seek advice wherever they wish and it is the likes of parking firms and their solicitors who deal mainly in template letters. I reserve the right to seek a strike out myself, if you proceed veraciously with a template claim without due diligence nor any particulars that could possibly give rise to a claim, knowing that I cannot be held liable.

I remind you that there is no presumption in law relating to private land parking, that a keeper was the driver, unless your client has evidence of that person. If they do have evidence of who was driving, I require that evidence to be furnished along with copies of their letters and pictures of the signs on site which they allege were capable of creating a contract with a driver.

If I do not receive the evidence upon which your client intends to rely, within 14 days, I will quite reasonably consider the matter closed.

Yours Faithfully,

Thanks Coupon-mad, I've copied AnnieAnne's response but tailored the specific dates to mine. I've read through this board and also pepipoo and the responses all seem similar, is this an issue? Or is a generic response sufficient for the case to be thrown out?

Is it ok to simply send the defence on the MoneyClaim website? Or do i need to sign and send the letter as well?

Thank you very much for your help.

[FONT=&quot]In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number ***
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v ***
Defence Statement

I deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 07 April 2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Claimant’s Legal Representative”.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
(c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
(d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent 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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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) 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 £254.00 for outstanding debt and damages.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) 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.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) 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.
(ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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:
This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

9. 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.

10. 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.

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 07 April 2017.
(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

The vague Particulars of 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 confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed
Date [/FONT]

Thanks coupon-mad i'll submit tomorrow.