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
    • Stevie Barr
    • By Stevie Barr 5th Jun 17, 7:39 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 7Thanks
    Stevie Barr
    Court Papers from CEL Dispute
    • #1
    • 5th Jun 17, 7:39 PM
    Court Papers from CEL Dispute 5th Jun 17 at 7:39 PM
    Hi everyone......
    So back in January of last year my car spent an extra 24 minutes in a 1 hour limit free car park controlled by Civil Enforcement- the usual scaremongering paper trail ensued which on poor advice I ignored until I got the Letter Before Claim the following May, which was odd as it had the word "Draft" stamped all over it........ however I sought advice on a Facebook forum and was told it was nonsense as it did not follow the required practice direction but I should answer asking for one that did (I followed this advice), some months later I received what appeared to be exactly the same document except that it did not feature the word "Draft" this time, and so I sent them the same reply again, only to hear nothing for nearly a year and now I have received court papers. I followed the excellent advice on the Newbies thread here and have completed the AOS and so am starting a new thread as advised........ I only appear to have the document with "Draft" printed on it so I can only assume that I binned everything else..... If as advised the document in question does not comply with the practice direction would I be able to use that as part of my defence? Thanks in advance
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 5th Jun 17, 7:54 PM
    • 15,486 Posts
    • 19,571 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 5th Jun 17, 7:54 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Jun 17, 7:54 PM
    yes, but if you read some of the court case threads over the last 12 months you would know that you can ask for copies of all paperwork, plus in the DQ you can do so as well, so any defence should mention the lack of paperwork and request that it can be altered if and when the POC give you more information

    at this point you need to draft your defence, as you cannot add to it later , so various caveats can be put into it

    dont look at anything pre beavis , so nothing older than 2016 and preferably this year

    also look at say ten CEL cases on here and on pepipoo forums, so you can see what they have written, as CEL are likely to fold before a court hearing when they see a robust defence

    a lot of the defence will already be written in those ongoing cases

    so more research please

    ps:- please use paragraphs in future, like I have done , especially in your court papers and drafts etc
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jun 17, 9:08 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,353 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 5th Jun 17, 9:08 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Jun 17, 9:08 PM
    CEL cases are the easiest to defend, no hearing, nothing. Just search & copy a 2017 one!
    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.

    • Stevie Barr
    • By Stevie Barr 5th Jun 17, 9:18 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Stevie Barr
    • #4
    • 5th Jun 17, 9:18 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Jun 17, 9:18 PM
    Thanks folks, will report back!
    • Stevie Barr
    • By Stevie Barr 8th Jun 17, 10:00 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Stevie Barr
    • #5
    • 8th Jun 17, 10:00 AM
    • #5
    • 8th Jun 17, 10:00 AM
    Ok, with the original posters permission I have adapted a recent defence- much was made in the original of the inadequate signage, but as my case was so long ago I can't honestly remember what the signs were like at the time, I had a look the other day and I don't think that they could be described as "inadequate" now. Might there be anything else that I can add in? Thanks

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number XXX
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited v XXX

    Defence Statement

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

    1/ The Claim Form issued on the 30 May 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 “Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

    2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
    (a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's repeated requests for further information.
    (b) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.

    3/ There can be no 'presumption' by the claimant that the keeper was the driver. 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. Neither the signs, nor the Notice to Keeper, mentioned a possible £335.93 for outstanding debt and damages.

    4/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (b) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    5/ 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.

    6/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    The Claimant has no legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

    7/ 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.

    8/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirms that the penalty rule is still 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.

    9/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If the ‘Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)’ is an employee then the Defendant suggests he/she is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated 30 May 2017 are templates, so it is not credible that £50 ‘legal costs’ were incurred. 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 30 May 2017.
    (b) failed to respond to two letters requesting a "Letter Before Action" compliant with the required Practice Direction.

    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.

    Mr XXX[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by Stevie Barr; 08-06-2017 at 10:08 AM.
    • Stevie Barr
    • By Stevie Barr 9th Jun 17, 9:56 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Stevie Barr
    • #6
    • 9th Jun 17, 9:56 AM
    • #6
    • 9th Jun 17, 9:56 AM
    It would be handy to know exactly how the Letter Before Action I received does not comply with the Practice Direction, might anyone please advise me if I post a scan?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jun 17, 7:10 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,353 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 9th Jun 17, 7:10 PM
    • #7
    • 9th Jun 17, 7:10 PM
    Yes, show us - we all know it will not comply!
    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.

    • Stevie Barr
    • By Stevie Barr 10th Jun 17, 12:58 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Stevie Barr
    • #8
    • 10th Jun 17, 12:58 AM
    • #8
    • 10th Jun 17, 12:58 AM
    Damn, as I'm a new user it's not letting me post a Photobucket link, is there any other way to upload images?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th Jun 17, 8:34 AM
    • 14,499 Posts
    • 22,793 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 10th Jun 17, 8:34 AM
    • #9
    • 10th Jun 17, 8:34 AM
    Damn, as I'm a new user it's not letting me post a Photobucket link, is there any other way to upload images?
    Originally posted by Stevie Barr
    Have you changed http to hxxp of the URL after you've tried to paste it here? As a newbie, you don't have live-link pasting privileges until you have a couple of dozen (or so) posts under your belt.

    Regulars will convert your 'dead' link into a 'live' one.
    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.
    • Stevie Barr
    • By Stevie Barr 10th Jun 17, 12:46 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Stevie Barr
    I will give that a whirl
    • Stevie Barr
    • By Stevie Barr 15th Jun 17, 4:18 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Stevie Barr
    Sorry for delay, had a crazy couple of days. It still won't let me post any links even when changed to hxxp �� is there anything that they tend to put in the wording that is already common knowledge that is non compliant that I can look for? If necessary I'll type the whole thing verbatim. Incidentally how does my drafted defence above look at the moment?
    Last edited by Stevie Barr; 15-06-2017 at 4:28 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jun 17, 12:33 AM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,353 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If necessary I'll type the whole thing verbatim.
    Spare us! Seriously, no need really.

    CEL NTKs are not POFA ones, and it is obvious when you simply look at para 9 of Schedule 4. You need to have a line about that in your defence, that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, so a keeper cannot be liable in law.
    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.

    • Stevie Barr
    • By Stevie Barr 20th Jun 17, 7:26 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Stevie Barr
    Great advice I've added it at the bottom........Ok how's this?



    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number XXX
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited v XXX

    Defence Statement

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

    1/ The Claim Form issued on the 30 May 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 “Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

    2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
    (a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's repeated requests for further information.
    (b) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.

    3/ There can be no 'presumption' by the claimant that the keeper was the driver. 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. Neither the signs, nor the Notice to Keeper, mentioned a possible £335.93 for outstanding debt and damages.

    4/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (b) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    5/ 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.

    6/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    The Claimant has no legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

    7/ 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.

    8/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirms that the penalty rule is still 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.

    9/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If the ‘Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)’ is an employee then the Defendant suggests he/she is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated 30 May 2017 are templates, so it is not credible that £50 ‘legal costs’ were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    10/ The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, so a keeper cannot be liable in law.

    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 30 May 2017.
    (b) failed to respond to two letters requesting a "Letter Before Action" compliant with the required Practice Direction.

    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.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mr. Xxxx
    Last edited by Stevie Barr; 20-06-2017 at 8:52 PM.
    • Babster
    • By Babster 20th Jun 17, 7:35 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Babster
    Hi this is great. Hope you don't mind me "borrowing" this :-)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Jun 17, 7:39 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,353 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Everyone can copy any CEL defence on this forum that's recent, and should find the claim 'stayed' (ended, effectively, no hearing, nothing scary). Glad to see others are copying from the usual CEL defences - these are so easy to stop.
    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.

    • Stevie Barr
    • By Stevie Barr 20th Jun 17, 8:04 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Stevie Barr
    Be my guest- good luck
    • Stevie Barr
    • By Stevie Barr 20th Jun 17, 8:06 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Stevie Barr
    So I just need to post this to the court by recorded delivery now then I assume?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Jun 17, 10:11 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,353 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No. Why would you spend over a fiver on posting snail mail, a PDF you can email to the CCBC?
    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.

    • Stevie Barr
    • By Stevie Barr 21st Jun 17, 1:29 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Stevie Barr
    Does it not need to be signed in ink?
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 21st Jun 17, 9:42 AM
    • 3,178 Posts
    • 3,213 Thanks
    DoaM
    Print the signing page, sign it, scan it, attach it to your PDF.

    Simples.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
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

2,299Posts Today

8,138Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin