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
    • MrsWhitt2509
    • By MrsWhitt2509 21st Apr 17, 3:18 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 2Thanks
    MrsWhitt2509
    CEL county court claim received
    • #1
    • 21st Apr 17, 3:18 PM
    CEL county court claim received 21st Apr 17 at 3:18 PM
    Hello,

    Would someone mind please helping me with my court defence?
    I have read the newbies section and believe i've done all I can, now I just need to format a defence. However, there are so many different versions of this and thats where I get a bit lost!

    Background is that someone parked in a restaurant car park for 15 mins whilst making a phone call, we received the first notification from CEL on 2/6/16 saying the offence was on 5/5/16. Am I correct is saying this is then too late? There was no ticket placed on the car.
    We ignored all reminders (we didn't realise things have now changed!)
    We now have had court papers.

    So I believe that CEL have made three errors...
    1. The PCN was more than 14 days after the incident
    2. I have spoken to the council and there is no planning permission in place for the ANPR machine and the signage?
    3. The county claim form is signed off 'civil enforcement limited'

    I have completed the online court claim that says I will be defending all the claim (claim form dated 7th April) I now just need to format my defence, can I please have some help?

    Thank you so much!
    Last edited by MrsWhitt2509; 21-04-2017 at 4:17 PM.
Page 1
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 21st Apr 17, 3:53 PM
    • 1,165 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #2
    • 21st Apr 17, 3:53 PM
    • #2
    • 21st Apr 17, 3:53 PM
    First of all you've done the right thing in finding this forum. Whilst CEL are very litigious they always back out when up against a defendant assisted by this forum. In fact I'm not aware of an assisted defendant ever having to appear in court (I stand to be corrected).

    You've also done the right thing in reading the NEWBIES thread... but then you forgot the next stage - reading other threads with CEL court defences - there are loads on here and pepipoo

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60

    Use the search box at the top of page 1 of this forum and the Google Custom search on pepipoo to search keywords like 'CEL court',' CEL defence'. There have been loads of CEL defences posted on this forum and they're all pretty similar so find one you like and post it here for review, or cobble one together using paragraphs from several CEL defences.

    Each case has unique factors so don't look for one that is taylor-made for your case, just post a defence up here and we will help you personalise it.

    IMPORTANT! - Edit your opening post as it identifies the driver - You MUST NOT say or suggest who was driving - you are defending this as the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle, NOT the driver. Make reference only to "the driver".... e.g. "the driver parked the car"

    Have you communicated with CEL previously about this case? If so what have you said? Have you said or suggested who was driving?
    • MrsWhitt2509
    • By MrsWhitt2509 21st Apr 17, 4:19 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MrsWhitt2509
    • #3
    • 21st Apr 17, 4:19 PM
    • #3
    • 21st Apr 17, 4:19 PM
    There has been no communication between ourselves and CEL.

    Thanks, will look now and try and post one. I have read through a few defences but just got a bit baffled! Will attempt one now.............

    Thank you!!!
    • MrsWhitt2509
    • By MrsWhitt2509 21st Apr 17, 4:33 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MrsWhitt2509
    • #4
    • 21st Apr 17, 4:33 PM
    • #4
    • 21st Apr 17, 4:33 PM
    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number ****
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited v ******
    Defence Statement

    I am ******* the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle *****. I currently reside at ***.

    The Claim Form issued on the **** by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited”.

    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:

    1/ 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.

    2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
    (a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’.
    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
    (c) 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.

    3/ I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under 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. The PCN was issued 28 days after the incident.
    Henry 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.”

    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 £253.38 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 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:

    8/ 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.

    9/ 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.

    10/ 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 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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Apr 17, 12:26 AM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,062 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 22nd Apr 17, 12:26 AM
    • #5
    • 22nd Apr 17, 12:26 AM
    Looks fine to me. CEL ones are quite generic and we don't expect you to hear any 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.

    • MrsWhitt2509
    • By MrsWhitt2509 28th Jun 17, 10:48 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MrsWhitt2509
    • #6
    • 28th Jun 17, 10:48 AM
    • #6
    • 28th Jun 17, 10:48 AM
    Hello,
    So I have received a DQ this morning in this post.......does this mean that CEL are pressing ahead with the claim??
    HELP!!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Jun 17, 11:12 AM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,062 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 28th Jun 17, 11:12 AM
    • #7
    • 28th Jun 17, 11:12 AM
    Only to the point of DQ, it's common at the mo, several on pepipoo got the same. No big deal, I expect they are hoping to flush out numpties who pay and get scared, or people who might forget to complete the DQ.

    Go to the NEWBIES thread and tick the right boxes and send the DQ to the CCBC and to CEL.
    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.

    • MrsWhitt2509
    • By MrsWhitt2509 28th Jun 17, 3:21 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MrsWhitt2509
    • #8
    • 28th Jun 17, 3:21 PM
    Thanks 🙏🏻
    • #8
    • 28th Jun 17, 3:21 PM
    Thank you! Will do this and send tomorrow!
    • MrsWhitt2509
    • By MrsWhitt2509 17th Jul 17, 4:21 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MrsWhitt2509
    • #9
    • 17th Jul 17, 4:21 PM
    N271 form
    • #9
    • 17th Jul 17, 4:21 PM
    Hi,

    Sorry but I have read the newbies bit but still can't work out if receiving the N271 form (which we have today) shows that CEL are pressing ahead with their claim?
    Does this mean we will be going to court to fight this??
    Many thanks
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Jul 17, 4:31 PM
    • 15,432 Posts
    • 24,135 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    You have to work on the basis that if they are continuing to follow process (via the documents being issued) they are moving closer to a court hearing.

    They are the only ones in control here (unless you pay them - but no encouragement to do that will come from this forum) and they can discontinue at any time, which, based on recent past performance, them may well do.

    But until that happens you have to continue dancing to their tune and work on the basis that you will need to defend this at a hearing.

    Prepare for the worst, then you won't be shocked if this goes the distance.

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/209884205-Notice-of-Transfer-of-Proceedings-N271-
    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.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 17th Jul 17, 7:39 PM
    • 1,165 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Lamilad
    So I have received a DQ this morning!
    In take it this was the DQ for you to fill in? Have you received a completed copy of CEL's DQ?
    • MrsWhitt2509
    • By MrsWhitt2509 11th Aug 17, 9:54 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MrsWhitt2509
    Notice of Allocation
    Morning,

    We have received a notice of allocation to the small claims track. The first page is really pushing (even writing it in capital letters!!) that we attempt mediation but I believe from previous posts that this is not advisable?
    Then we have to file witness statements etc by beginning of Sept. Do I just print off my original defence and sign it saying 'this is a true....'
    Shall I post a picture of the document...removing names of course?

    Many thanks

    Amanda
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Aug 17, 10:03 AM
    • 33,227 Posts
    • 17,175 Thanks
    Quentin
    Say no to mediation

    You need to read up in the newbies FAQ thread on submitting your ws. Don't just send a copy of your original defence!
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 11th Aug 17, 10:44 AM
    • 1,165 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Lamilad
    We have received a notice of allocation to the small claims track.
    This is all normal process so far in a CEL claim.

    The NoA should state a date by which CEL must pay the hearing fee - usually a fee weeks before the evidence is submitted.

    Usually they don't pay it and the case is either stayed or struck out.

    That said, you must presume this will go all the way and start working on your WS. As advised read the newbies thread, post 2, including the relevant links.

    Then find other threads to research using the Search function.

    CEL don't rely on PoFA, submit vague and incoherent particulars of claim, use unclear, illegible signs, do not comply fully with BPA CoP and will fail on several CPR's/ practices directions.

    They must also prove they have authority to issue tickets on the relevant land via a full unredacted copy of their contact with the land owner.

    This, amongst other points, forms the bulk of your WS.

    Btw - it's a 'no' to mediation
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Aug 17, 2:09 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,062 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Morning,

    We have received a notice of allocation to the small claims track. The first page is really pushing (even writing it in capital letters!!) that we attempt mediation but I believe from previous posts that this is not advisable?
    Then we have to file witness statements etc by beginning of Sept. Do I just print off my original defence and sign it saying 'this is a true....'
    Originally posted by MrsWhitt2509
    No.

    Please follow the NEWBIES thread post #2 which has a post by bargepole about which boxes to tick.
    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.

    • MJA8
    • By MJA8 23rd Aug 17, 6:44 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    MJA8
    CPM county court claim
    Hi Sorry if posted in wrong thread but I am desperate.
    I live in a block of flats and the car park is managed by CPM UK Ltd. I parked my car without a permit in a bay. The lease does not include parking/ I don't have a bay as part of my lease.
    They only way to get a parking space is from the Housing Association. CPM manage the car park and issue tickets. I have a bay in the car park which I pay for but I am only allowed to park my first car (Renault) there as its the registered car for that bay. I bought a new car (Audi) and parked it in this space and moved my first car (Renault) out on to the road (for which I have a permit)
    I received 6 tickets from CPM and as normal I ignored the letters and the letters from Gladstone's. I also ignored the letters from DRP (Debt Recovery Plus Ltd).
    Now a county court claim ahs been made and I have Acknowledged the claim nut left the defence box empty.
    The dilemma I now face is that a defence has to be submitted and I know the lay out but don't have an argument to contest. I did park there on 6 different days. I know that I was not suppose to park there as the bay is only allocated to my Renault and not the Audi.
    Any suggestion for my defence ?
    Please help as I only have a week left to submit defence and statement.


    Many Thanks
    • waamo
    • By waamo 23rd Aug 17, 7:07 PM
    • 2,092 Posts
    • 2,498 Thanks
    waamo
    You need to do 2 things. Read the thread at the top of the forum that tells Newbies to read it first. When you've done that start your own thread so it doesn't get confusing answering loads of people in one thread.
    This space for hire.
    • MrsWhitt2509
    • By MrsWhitt2509 25th Aug 17, 7:35 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MrsWhitt2509
    Amazing news!!
    CEL HAVE CANCELLED THE CLAIM WHOOP WHOOP!

    They have filed a N279 form today, Notice of Discontinuance. Thank you for all your amazing help!!!!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 25th Aug 17, 8:25 PM
    • 15,432 Posts
    • 24,135 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    CEL HAVE CANCELLED THE CLAIM WHOOP WHOOP!

    They have filed a N279 form today, Notice of Discontinuance. Thank you for all your amazing help!!!!
    Originally posted by MrsWhitt2509
    Reverting to type. It's likely that all such contested claims, issued just before the summer holidays, will follow a similar path. There's one or two now coming through.

    But there'll be plenty who've been scared witless and have rapidly sent off a cheque to avoid 'getting into trouble in court'.

    Whilst it's a despicable method, as a business model, it's undoubtedly profitable. They won't mind discontinuing a few cases, because les autres avez ete encourage. (Why won't this forum accept acute accents on the letter 'e'?).
    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.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 25th Aug 17, 9:28 PM
    • 6,333 Posts
    • 8,144 Thanks
    beamerguy
    CEL HAVE CANCELLED THE CLAIM WHOOP WHOOP!

    They have filed a N279 form today, Notice of Discontinuance. Thank you for all your amazing help!!!!
    Originally posted by MrsWhitt2509
    Well done

    A little trick of CEL

    Such an uncouth firm
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
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

527Posts Today

5,275Users online

Martin's Twitter