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
    • Ronnie09
    • By Ronnie09 12th Jun 17, 6:13 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Ronnie09
    Claim form
    • #1
    • 12th Jun 17, 6:13 PM
    Claim form 12th Jun 17 at 6:13 PM
    Hi I really need some advice, I've read through a lot of the things on here but I'm just getting really confused, so I got a PCN in Sep 2016 in a KFC car park I use to visit in the past and hadn't realised it was now camered up, and stupidly gives u 30 minutes to eat and get out,
    I qued for at least 15 minutes and then had 3 children to wait for to eat all there food,
    I phoned KFC as soon as I got the PCN and the manager told me to ignore it all and asked me to take the PCN down there for them to photocopy (which I did) he told me the time limit was ridiculous for he's customers and that KFC were going to take them to court for this! So just ignore it all.
    I have had numerous letters sent to me from civil enforcement LTD , solicitor letters which I have all ignored BUT now I have got a county court business centre claim form and I don't know what to do???
    When I googled it people have said it's a fake court form and to keep ignoring it? Please help
    Last edited by Ronnie09; 13-06-2017 at 10:12 PM.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Jun 17, 6:19 PM
    • 16,013 Posts
    • 20,036 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 12th Jun 17, 6:19 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Jun 17, 6:19 PM
    please edit the above into paragraphs so people can actually read it

    then look at post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread near the top of this parking forum , it explains the perocess etc

    the form is probably real but you can check with Northampton CCBC if you really wanted to

    if its from Northampton, you can be almost 100% sure that it is real and should not be ignored (or a default CCJ will be the result)

    if its from CEL, then yes its real

    you should also be making a strong complaint to KFC in the light of what you have said, in writing, to their head office
    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
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Jun 17, 6:21 PM
    • 33,044 Posts
    • 17,003 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #3
    • 12th Jun 17, 6:21 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Jun 17, 6:21 PM
    If you have inadvertently used your real name as your forum name you need to get MSE to change it and make it anonymous.

    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 12th Jun 17, 6:38 PM
    • 1,016 Posts
    • 2,021 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #4
    • 12th Jun 17, 6:38 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Jun 17, 6:38 PM
    Once you have read post 2 of the NEWBIES thread, including the quoted links, post your draft defence on here for review.

    Once that's done with you'll find CEL will discontinue this claim around or shortly after the DQ stage.

    Just down reveal who was driving as they don't rely on PoFA
    • waamo
    • By waamo 12th Jun 17, 6:46 PM
    • 2,063 Posts
    • 2,474 Thanks
    waamo
    • #5
    • 12th Jun 17, 6:46 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Jun 17, 6:46 PM
    I very much doubt it's a fake form. Ignoring it has got you into this mess. I certainly wouldn't recommend carrying on with that course of action.
    This space for hire.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jun 17, 11:00 PM
    • 50,604 Posts
    • 63,999 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 12th Jun 17, 11:00 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Jun 17, 11:00 PM
    ... now I have got a county court business centre claim form and I don't know what to do???
    Originally posted by D C
    Yes you do. Follow what every other CEL claim thread has done. Acknowledge the claim (see post #2 of the NEWBIES thread) then copy a CEL defence from 2017 and they will cancel.

    It is that easy - and VERY important to get it right.

    If you ignore a court claim you WILL get a CCJ. Is that what you want?

    Come on, this is easy to defend, you are lucky it's CEL. Just read another thread like yours.
    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.

    • Ronnie09
    • By Ronnie09 13th Jun 17, 10:05 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ronnie09
    • #7
    • 13th Jun 17, 10:05 PM
    • #7
    • 13th Jun 17, 10:05 PM
    Thank you for your help, so does this look ok?

    Claim Number: *************

    Civil Enforcement Ltd v *********

    Statement of Defence

    I am ***********defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

    1/ This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied 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 license 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’, under the Practice Direction, no letters or correspondence has been received apart from the Claim notification itself and the Schedule of Information, which followed.

    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The initial County Court Claim Form
    only contains the claimants name, address and amounts of money identified as debt and damages, with a notice that detailed particulars will be provided within 14 days.

    (c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information:
    1. The defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
    2. The VRN.
    3. The date and time of the alleged incident.
    4. Car park name.
    5. Outstanding amount and break down of costs.

    It does not detail
    1. Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
    2. Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged time.
    3. How long or proof that the car was actually parked
    4. The vehicle type and colour
    5. Why the charge arose.


    3/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (a) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.

    (b) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) 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.

    (c) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

    (d) It is believed the terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time).

    (e) 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.

    (f) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.


    4/ POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver has not been evidenced and a registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. In cases where a keeper is deemed liable, where compliant documentation was served, the sum pursued cannot exceed the original parking charge, only if adequately drawn to the attention of drivers on any signage.


    5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (a) No grace period was allowed.

    (b) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.

    (c) The sum pursued exceeds £100.

    (d) There is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    (e) The charge is not based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss (a condition at the time).


    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:

    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.


    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, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any 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. it is not credible that £50.00 legal costs were incurred. Nor it is believed that a fee was paid to any debt recovery agency so the Claimant is put to strict proof it has. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.


    11/ In the Beavis case the £85 was deemed the 'quid pro quo' for the license, granted to park free for two hours and there was no quantified loss. Not so in this case where it is believed the location is one with a small tariff after a grace period.


    12/ If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to unlit signage) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (the tariff) where any sum pursued for breach must still relate to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


    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 Claim Form issued on 08th June 2017.
    (b) Failed to provide Particulars of Claim within 14 days of the date of service of the Claim Form, thus making it impossible for the Defendant to prepare any form of defence.

    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.

    In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

    The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

    Regards

    Miss ****** ******
    Last edited by Ronnie09; 13-06-2017 at 10:08 PM. Reason: used real name
    • Ronnie09
    • By Ronnie09 13th Jun 17, 10:26 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ronnie09
    • #8
    • 13th Jun 17, 10:26 PM
    • #8
    • 13th Jun 17, 10:26 PM
    Also can I print this off and send it in the post with the court forms???
    • waamo
    • By waamo 13th Jun 17, 10:42 PM
    • 2,063 Posts
    • 2,474 Thanks
    waamo
    • #9
    • 13th Jun 17, 10:42 PM
    • #9
    • 13th Jun 17, 10:42 PM
    Point 9 is now useless. It's best taken out.
    This space for hire.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 13th Jun 17, 10:55 PM
    • 1,016 Posts
    • 2,021 Thanks
    Lamilad
    It's a decent defence and should be enough to see off CEL but I think you need a strong point in there about the fact they don't comply with PoFA and so can't hold the keeper liable.

    Plenty of defences have such points so you'll be able to find one and copy it into your own.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 13th Jun 17, 10:59 PM
    • 1,016 Posts
    • 2,021 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Also can I print this off and send it in the post with the court forms???
    Don't waste a stamp, email your defence to the court with your claim no in the subject line. Ring the court the next day to ensure they've received it.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 17, 11:04 PM
    • 50,604 Posts
    • 63,999 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'm not sure that was copied from a recent CEL defence. It doesn't read specifically enough, they normally start by talking about who signed the claim form.
    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.

    • Ronnie09
    • By Ronnie09 14th Jun 17, 10:19 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ronnie09
    really hoping I have got this correct now compared it to a thread a couple of months ago.
    thanks for everyones help ive really been stressing about this, does this look ok?


    Claim Number: *********

    Civil Enforcement Ltd v *********

    Statement of Defence

    I am************ defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

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

    The Claim Form issued on the 08TH 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 "Claimant's Legal Representative"”.


    1/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:

    (a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, no letters or correspondence has been received apart from the Claim notification itself and the Schedule of Information, which followed.

    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The initial County Court Claim Form only contains the claimants name, address and amounts of money identified as debt and damages, with a notice that detailed particulars will be provided within 14 days.

    (c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information:
    1. The defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
    2. The VRN.
    3. The date and time of the alleged incident.
    4. Car park name.
    5. Outstanding amount and break down of costs.

    It does not detail
    1. Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
    2. Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged time.
    3. How long or proof that the car was actually parked
    4. The vehicle type and colour
    5. Why the charge arose.

    2/The claimant has not 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.

    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.”

    4/This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied 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 license to park free. None of this applies in this material case.


    5/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (a) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.

    (b) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) 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.

    (c) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

    (d) It is believed the terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time).

    (e) 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.

    (f) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.


    6/ POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver has not been evidenced and a registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. In cases where a keeper is deemed liable, where compliant documentation was served, the sum pursued cannot exceed the original parking charge, only if adequately drawn to the attention of drivers on any signage.


    7/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (a) No grace period was allowed.

    (b) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.

    (c) The sum pursued exceeds £100.

    (d) There is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    (e) The charge is not based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss (a condition at the time).


    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/ 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.


    10/ 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.


    11/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. it is not credible that £50.00 legal costs were incurred so the Claimant is put to strict proof it has. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.


    12/ In the Beavis case the £85 was deemed the 'quid pro quo' for the license, granted to park free for two hours and there was no quantified loss. Not so in this case where it is believed the location is one with a small tariff after a grace period.


    13/ If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to unlit signage) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (the tariff) where any sum pursued for breach must still relate to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

    * Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on 08th June 2017.


    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.

    In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

    The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

    Regards

    Miss ************
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jun 17, 8:59 PM
    • 50,604 Posts
    • 63,999 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's better - nearly there - and it relates more to CEL (as long as the claim form was signed by ''Claimant's Legal Representative'' with no name of a solicitor).

    A typo here, should be licence (the noun spelling ends 'ce', this is not the verb which ends 'se' in the UK):

    12/ In the Beavis case the £85 was deemed the 'quid pro quo' for the licence license, granted ...
    More of an issue are these parts which talk about your case involving a tariff (pay and display). But you said it earlier it wasn't, and if it isn't a pay & display car park you can't talk about a tariff or fee.

    to park free for two hours and there was no quantified loss. Not so in this case where it is believed the location is one with a small tariff after a grace period.
    13/ If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to unlit signage) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (the tariff) where any sum pursued for breach must still relate to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 14-06-2017 at 9:03 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.

    • Ronnie09
    • By Ronnie09 15th Jun 17, 4:05 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ronnie09
    Claim Number: **********

    Civil Enforcement Ltd v ********

    Statement of Defence

    I am ********** defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

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

    The Claim Form issued on the 08TH 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 "Claimant's Legal Representative"”.


    1/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:

    (a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, no letters or correspondence has been received apart from the Claim notification itself and the Schedule of Information, which followed.

    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The initial County Court Claim Form only contains the claimants name, address and amounts of money identified as debt and damages, with a notice that detailed particulars will be provided within 14 days.

    (c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information:
    1. The defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
    2. The VRN.
    3. The date and time of the alleged incident.
    4. Car park name.
    5. Outstanding amount and break down of costs.

    It does not detail
    1. Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
    2. Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged time.
    3. How long or proof that the car was actually parked
    4. The vehicle type and colour
    5. Why the charge arose.

    2/The claimant has not 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.

    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.”

    4/This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied 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 license to park free. None of this applies in this material case.


    5/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (a) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.

    (b) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) 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.

    (c) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

    (d) It is believed the terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time).

    (e) 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.

    (f) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.


    6/ POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver has not been evidenced and a registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. In cases where a keeper is deemed liable, where compliant documentation was served, the sum pursued cannot exceed the original parking charge, only if adequately drawn to the attention of drivers on any signage.


    7/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (a) No grace period was allowed.

    (b) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.

    (c) The sum pursued exceeds £100.

    (d) There is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    (e) The charge is not based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss (a condition at the time).


    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/ 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.


    10/ 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.


    11/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. it is not credible that £50.00 legal costs were incurred so the Claimant is put to strict proof it has. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.


    12/ In the Beavis case the £85 was deemed the 'quid pro quo' for the licence, granted to park free for two hours and there was no quantified loss.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

    * Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on 08th June 2017.


    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.

    In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

    The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

    Regards

    Miss ******************
    • Ronnie09
    • By Ronnie09 15th Jun 17, 4:10 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ronnie09
    thank u coupon-mad for making me aware of these
    I have deleted #13 should I delete #12 to?? not sure it makes sense now I've edited that part (12)
    Yes it wasn't a tariff it was a camera filming me goin in and coming out and
    yep it was signed claimants legal representatives
    Last edited by Ronnie09; 15-06-2017 at 4:14 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jun 17, 12:28 AM
    • 50,604 Posts
    • 63,999 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good point, remove #12 completely.

    Then email it to the CCBC as a signed, dated PDF defence. Make sure the claim number is in the subject line of course. Don;t use MCOL to upload a defence as it gets chewed up and the formatting disappears.
    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.

    • Ronnie09
    • By Ronnie09 27th Jul 17, 3:08 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ronnie09
    Hey so the 28 days was over for them to respond to my defence and now a week after the deadline I have received a letter saying : notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track. Inside it's asking me to do mediation, Wot Do I respond to this ???
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Jul 17, 3:09 PM
    • 50,604 Posts
    • 63,999 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Same as all the other people who are at the same stage - search the forum for 'allocation' and you will find other CEL threads.
    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.

    • Ronnie09
    • By Ronnie09 27th Jul 17, 3:46 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ronnie09
    Ok I have read through, but I don't understand it, they have gone over the 28days, the acknowledgement letter I received clearly states that the claimant must contact the court within 28days after receiving a copy of my defence and after that period had elapsed the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take is to apply to a judge for an order lifteing the 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

976Posts Today

6,863Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Well so far it seems there's one thing remainers and leavers agree on - the EU is getting the better of the negotia? https://t.co/70z5ffpG8S

  • Today's Twitter poll: If you had to pick one, who do you think is coming out best so far in the Brexit negotiations, UK or EU?

  • It isn't an article by me.I don't write for express. They just cunningly report my tv appearances as if I did. https://t.co/0DDfDU7Kbp

  • Follow Martin