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
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 11th Jun 17, 5:43 PM
    • 30Posts
    • 9Thanks
    kryptonite786
    Civil Enforcement Limited Court Claim
    • #1
    • 11th Jun 17, 5:43 PM
    Civil Enforcement Limited Court Claim 11th Jun 17 at 5:43 PM
    Hi all

    I would appreciate your help if possible please. I have just received a small claims court letter in regards to a parking 'invoice' for CEL, after wrongly ignoring all of the letters.

    I have just been going through the Newbies sticky, I am currently in the process of entering all the details into the AOS. I have noticed they have somehow spelt my name incorrectly in all the correspondence I have received, does that make a difference to anything?
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Jun 17, 5:46 PM
    • 33,539 Posts
    • 17,432 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 11th Jun 17, 5:46 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Jun 17, 5:46 PM
    Not to the issue! (Assuming you are the person they are chasing and not someone else with a similar but different name!)
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 11th Jun 17, 6:02 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    • #3
    • 11th Jun 17, 6:02 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Jun 17, 6:02 PM
    Ok thanks, will get the AOS done asap, I will also get a draft defence letter written up. Is it possible someone could help me with this once posted.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jun 17, 6:11 PM
    • 51,787 Posts
    • 65,410 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 11th Jun 17, 6:11 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Jun 17, 6:11 PM
    This will be easy. CEL (and Smart Parking) cases are the easiest to defend and quash, early on.

    You just need to copy another CEL one, we've seen loads. ALL cancelled, no hearings. No stress.

    So search the forum for 'CEL defence' and copy from a 2017 one. You could add a counter claim if you want a punt for £500 (costs you a £25 fee up front to counter-claim, plus £25 hearing fee to be heard, which you add to your claimed costs):

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5655023

    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 11-06-2017 at 6:13 PM.
    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.

    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 11th Jun 17, 9:30 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    • #5
    • 11th Jun 17, 9:30 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Jun 17, 9:30 PM
    Thanks for your advice , I will get cracking!
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 24th Jun 17, 12:53 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    • #6
    • 24th Jun 17, 12:53 PM
    Draft Defence
    • #6
    • 24th Jun 17, 12:53 PM
    Hi All,

    I have now drafted the defence using other posts on this forum, there are a few questions that I have as highlighted in red under the relevant paragraphs and the bullet points below, please let me know if this is sufficient:

    (Speech marks will be removed in final draft as these are auto compiled when posting)

    * I have a signed letter on letter headed paper from the organisation where the vehicle was parked, stating the vehicle was correctly parked and I was a genuine user of the car park, apparently you have to enter your registration into a device when entering the building. (Does this have any weighting and should I mention this in the defence, I can show you this letter redacted if you would like to see it)

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited
    V
    DEFENDANT

    I, DEFENDANT, 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 8th June 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”.

    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.(I did receive a LBCC, would this still be relevant as I may not have received a 'compliant' LBCC).

    (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.!

    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.”
    (I have added the paragraph above from a different defence template as I felt this was relevant to POFA, please can you confirm this is actually the case)

    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 £326.52 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

    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.

    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.


    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. 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.

    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 8th June 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
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 24th Jun 17, 1:58 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    • #7
    • 24th Jun 17, 1:58 PM
    Ashley Cohen
    • #7
    • 24th Jun 17, 1:58 PM
    Realised I could also add this paragraph below in addition as the PoC were signed by Ashley Cohen, would you agree?

    d) The additional particulars of claim are signed purportedly by Ashley Cohen, Mr Cohen was reported to sign off witness statements under London Councils POPLA on behalf of landowners, for CEL POPLA cases falsely stating authority. It is submitted that he is a director of another company, Bemrose Mobile Limited which supplies the pay by phone payment methods for parking. Mr Cohen was a former director of Creative Contracts Ltd but has since resigned. Mr Cohen is therefore put to strict proof the capacity and authority he has in signing such statements.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Jun 17, 4:08 PM
    • 51,787 Posts
    • 65,410 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 24th Jun 17, 4:08 PM
    • #8
    • 24th Jun 17, 4:08 PM
    Yes that's all fine, including the added but about Mr Cohen.

    I have a signed letter on letter headed paper from the organisation where the vehicle was parked, stating the vehicle was correctly parked and I was a genuine user of the car park, apparently you have to enter your registration into a device when entering the building.
    Add something at the start, like this poster just did today in her one:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5668452

    The rest of the points in your defence are all good, and yes, include them all.
    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.

    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 26th Jun 17, 4:35 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    • #9
    • 26th Jun 17, 4:35 PM
    • #9
    • 26th Jun 17, 4:35 PM
    Hi Coupon-mad

    I have added a sentence in red below, stating the vehicle was parked legitimately and is confirmed in writing, please let me know if this is suitable.

    IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE (CBBC)
    Claim No.:

    Between

    CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED
    (Claimant)

    -and-



    (Defendant)

    __________________________________________________ _________________________

    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    __________________________________________________ _________________________


    1. The Claim Form issued on the 8th June 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”.

    2. The defendant advises that the organisation ‘xxx xxx’ has confirmed in writing the vehicle was parked genuinely at the premises, therefore authorised to park.

    3. 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.!

    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 additional particulars of claim are signed purportedly by Ashley Cohen, Mr Cohen was reported to sign off witness statements under London Councils POPLA on behalf of landowners, for CEL POPLA cases falsely stating authority. It is submitted that he is a director of another company, Bemrose Mobile Limited which supplies the pay by phone payment methods for parking. Mr Cohen was a former director of Creative Contracts Ltd but has since resigned. Mr Cohen is therefore put to strict proof the capacity and authority he has in signing such statements.

    f) The!Defence!therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

    g) 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

    h) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another!defence.

    4. 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.!
    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) 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 £326.52 for outstanding debt and damages.
    5. 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

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    iii. there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    8. 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.

    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 8th June 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.
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 26th Jun 17, 8:29 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    Lbbc
    Also wanted to confirm if section 3.a is relevant as I did receive a letter before court action
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 26th Jun 17, 9:47 PM
    • 745 Posts
    • 1,383 Thanks
    Johnersh
    wanted to confirm if section 3.a is relevant as I did receive a letter before court action
    A template (aka precedent) is like fire: a good slave, but a bad master.

    One size does not fit all. A precedent example should be amended to suit your case. It is YOUR defence with your statement of truth. Adapt as needed.
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 26th Jun 17, 10:18 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    Lbbc
    Yes, that is correct, however it says 'compliant' LBBC, therefore just wanted to confirm if this is still relevant, although I did receive the LBBC however it may not be 'compliant', on that basis would you say this is relevant?
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 26th Jun 17, 10:28 PM
    • 745 Posts
    • 1,383 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Does the letter if claim include:

    1. Details of the alleged contract
    2. A summary of the factual circus (when parked, when left, when ticketed
    3. Details of the charges sought

    Essentially a basis for them to bring a claim giving you the opportunity to fully respond and persuade them of why they are wrong

    That's the concept. No one said the parking co will necessarily genuinely engage in negotiation. I've not seen your Loc. If it substantially meets the above, is stick with the better points.
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 26th Jun 17, 10:36 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    Lbbc
    The letter before action includes:

    • Vehicle reg
    • PCN reference
    • Date of incident
    • The site
    • The amount owed
    • Daft PoC
    • The Beavis case
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 26th Jun 17, 10:49 PM
    • 745 Posts
    • 1,383 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Leave it as compliant then. Details of the signage really ought to be set out in detail in the letter as that is, strictly speaking, the precise basis for the contract.

    Love a bit of Beavis. Possibly the most misused, ill-referenced Supreme Court judgment ever.
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 26th Jun 17, 10:55 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    Section 2 in red is relevant to my scenario but I am not sure about the wording or if it needs to be more detailed.

    Would appreciate some advice about section 2 if possible.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 27th Jun 17, 7:22 AM
    • 15,927 Posts
    • 24,710 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Love a bit of Beavis. Possibly the most misused, ill-referenced Supreme Court judgment ever.
    Because hardly any PPC understands any of it (and not just because it doesn't have any pictures!).

    "It's Beavis, M'Lud - innit".
    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.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 27th Jun 17, 8:40 AM
    • 745 Posts
    • 1,383 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I look forward to a forumite relying on Beavis to demonstrate when a charge IS a penalty and get off the hook that way.

    If the conditions are right (signage and charges) it could well happen. Penalty clauses aren't dead. Yet.

    It may be Beavis, but what if your opponent is Butthead? (for the benefit of the MTV generation)
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 27th Jun 17, 9:07 AM
    • 30 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    Will be emailing this over tomorrow , can someone confirm if it is good to go please?
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 27th Jun 17, 7:47 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    Right, I have changed my draft slightly, can someone let me know if this is now good to go, so I can get this emailed to CCBC. In particular the wording of section 2.

    1. The Claim Form issued on the 8th June 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”. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by “Civil Enforcement Limited” as the Claimant’s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

    2. The defendant advises the landowner ‘xxxxxx’ has confirmed in writing that the vehicle was parked genuinely at the premises, therefore authorised to park.

    3. 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.!

    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 additional particulars of claim are signed purportedly by Ashley Cohen, Mr Cohen was reported to sign off witness statements under London Councils POPLA on behalf of landowners, for CEL POPLA cases falsely stating authority. It is submitted that he is a director of another company, Bemrose Mobile Limited which supplies the pay by phone payment methods for parking. Mr Cohen was a former director of Creative Contracts Ltd but has since resigned. Mr Cohen is therefore put to strict proof the capacity and authority he has in signing such statements.

    f) The!Defence!therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

    g) 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

    h) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another!defence.

    4. 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.!
    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) 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 £326.52 for outstanding debt and damages.
    5. 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

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    iii. there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    8. 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.

    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 8th June 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.
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

254Posts Today

1,458Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Nice debating with (all but the rude ones) of you. Bedtime for me now. Goodnight #bbcqt

  • RT @kevmthomas: @MartinSLewis It was a comment you made about the referendum being a binary choice on a non binary issue that helped me rea?

  • To clarify this. Cameron's gamble that having a stark vote'd mean his team won. He gambled wrong (that's not a stat? https://t.co/NSCT3aKvGS

  • Follow Martin