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
    • Pemalas
    • By Pemalas 12th Jun 17, 10:50 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Pemalas
    Civil Enforcement Ltd - County Court Claim Form
    • #1
    • 12th Jun 17, 10:50 PM
    Civil Enforcement Ltd - County Court Claim Form 12th Jun 17 at 10:50 PM
    Hi.
    I have read a lot of the other posts so think I know in regards to my county court claim from CEL.
    I do have some different circumstances.
    I attended the car park in question on two different occasions
    One at about 13:00 leaving about 14:30 then a cam back at about 21:00 bought tickets and left about 21:10.
    The ticket claimed I arrived and 1300 and left at 2100.
    I have a bank statement showing I bought two lots of separate tickets. No time shown but clearly on the same day.
    I will return the defence tomorrow leaving it blank.

    Any more advice would be great.

    Thanks.
    👍👍👍
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Jun 17, 11:03 PM
    • 32,767 Posts
    • 16,776 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 12th Jun 17, 11:03 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Jun 17, 11:03 PM
    Hi.
    I have read a lot of the other posts so think I know in regards to my county court claim from CEL.
    ............
    I will return the defence tomorrow leaving it blank.

    Any more advice would be great.
    Originally posted by Pemalas
    Well ........That would be pointless!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jun 17, 11:22 PM
    • 49,992 Posts
    • 63,391 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 12th Jun 17, 11:22 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Jun 17, 11:22 PM
    I will return the defence tomorrow leaving it blank.
    You mean you will do the AOS online, as shown in pictures in the NEWBIES thread post #2.

    Then, you will get this cancelled/discontinued by copying any 2017 CEL defence from here. Easy 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.

    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Jun 17, 11:23 PM
    • 15,499 Posts
    • 19,583 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 12th Jun 17, 11:23 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Jun 17, 11:23 PM
    agreed, do not return any defence that is blank

    read post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread, carefully

    and edit post #1 and remove any hint of who may have been driving

    or do you not think these people monitor public forums and can take screenshots ?
    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
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 13th Jun 17, 6:41 AM
    • 1,477 Posts
    • 2,751 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #5
    • 13th Jun 17, 6:41 AM
    • #5
    • 13th Jun 17, 6:41 AM
    Who signed the Claimant box on the claim form (bottom left)

    Does it say "Civil Enforcement" or does it give a name.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.
    • Pemalas
    • By Pemalas 13th Jun 17, 11:10 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Pemalas
    • #6
    • 13th Jun 17, 11:10 AM
    • #6
    • 13th Jun 17, 11:10 AM
    I'll get on to this after work

    Thank you
    • Pemalas
    • By Pemalas 13th Jun 17, 11:34 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Pemalas
    • #7
    • 13th Jun 17, 11:34 AM
    • #7
    • 13th Jun 17, 11:34 AM
    Hi.

    I'll check later.

    Thanks
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 14th Jun 17, 2:48 PM
    • 32,767 Posts
    • 16,776 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #8
    • 14th Jun 17, 2:48 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Jun 17, 2:48 PM
    You need to start your own thread
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 14th Jun 17, 3:53 PM
    • 5,950 Posts
    • 7,658 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #9
    • 14th Jun 17, 3:53 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Jun 17, 3:53 PM
    Hi

    Sorry to sound stupid. I have just received a CCJ from CEL for 324.29 (Incl £25 Court Fee).

    I am wondering how to appeal this. Where is this NEWBIES Thread?

    The Claim form is signed by: "Civil Enforcement Limited"

    I can say that the KFC Car Park I parked in did not have any signage with the stores opening and closing times, which was visible to me.

    Their terms are "30 minutes free whilst store is open" apparently the store had closed at 11pm and I was there from 11:20pm - 11:40pm.

    Thanks
    Tom
    Originally posted by tomspedding
    YOU MUST START A NEW THREAD FOR HELP

    Don't you mean a County Court Claim and NOT a CCJ ??

    Answer that on a new thread and you will also see the
    NEWBIES thread
    Last edited by beamerguy; 14-06-2017 at 3:55 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • abigailflo
    • By abigailflo 14th Jun 17, 5:16 PM
    • 251 Posts
    • 884 Thanks
    abigailflo
    Husband received a CCJ from this company for parking whilst he was taking our sick cat to the vets! He entered his registration number at the vets as he normally does and this stops getting parking tickets. We got the notice first and sent the confirmation of appointment letter to the company and thought that was that. We then received a letter from a solicitor and contacted the bets who stated that they couldn't enforce this and we had an appointment and to ignore it. He then received this CCJ. As far as we are concerned he wasn't parked illegally, the sign stated parking for customers of the vets and other stores and you enter your vehicle registration number once inside. These people are parasites! Going to have a look tonight at the CCJ and hopefully you good people will point me in the right direction of how to defend this.
    • abigailflo
    • By abigailflo 14th Jun 17, 5:17 PM
    • 251 Posts
    • 884 Thanks
    abigailflo
    Parking CCJ - Help
    Husband received a CCJ from this company for parking whilst he was taking our sick cat to the vets! He entered his registration number at the vets as he normally does and this stops getting parking tickets. We got the notice first and sent the confirmation of appointment letter to the company and thought that was that. We then received a letter from a solicitor and contacted the bets who stated that they couldn't enforce this and we had an appointment and to ignore it. He then received this CCJ. As far as we are concerned he wasn't parked illegally, the sign stated parking for customers of the vets and other stores and you enter your vehicle registration number once inside. These people are parasites! Going to have a look tonight at the CCJ and hopefully you good people will point me in the right direction of how to defend this.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 14th Jun 17, 5:20 PM
    • 2,011 Posts
    • 2,429 Thanks
    waamo
    Please if you want advice start your own thread. Dishing out three sets of advice to three different people in one thread will lead to confusion all round.
    This space for hire.
    • Pemalas
    • By Pemalas 6th Jul 17, 3:43 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Pemalas
    Hi. I have replied and have now written out this defence. If anyone has time to have a look I would be grateful.
    Update. I have received a particulars of Claim form CEL it is signed by Ashley Cohen. I have been back to cinema and they have now changed the signs. I don't feel this affects me since I didn't actually break the agreement of the car park anyway. This is what I have so far.




    Claim Number:

    Civil Enforcement Ltd v

    Statement of Defence

    I am Mr , defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim on the grounds that the vehicle in question did not exceed the time limit specified by the carpark terms.






    1/ On 4/8/16 the vehicle entered the carpark at 14:01 hours to attend the film ‘Finding Dory’ the duration of which is 1 hour and 37 minutes so at approximately 15:30 the vehicle left the carpark.


    At 20:54 hours the vehicle in question did then returned to the cinema to purchase two more tickets to a midnight showing of ‘Suicide Squad’ approximately 15 minutes later the car in question then left the carpark.


    This does not contravene the restrictions of this carpark in that the vehicle was not in the carpark for longer than five hours and the car did not return within one hour.


    This can be shown by the photographic evidence that civil enforcement Ltd claim to have taken, but have never shown.


    This can also be proven by the bank statement of the registered keeper of the vehicle which clearly shows that two separate lots of cinema ticket were brought on the same day.




    2/ This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undefined 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.

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


    (a) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents only contain two pieces of individual information: the name of the defendant and the name of the car park. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number, but no date of event, no details, no VRN, no contravention nor photographs.
    (b) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant had no idea what the claim is about - what the date of the parking event was, what the vehicle was, why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.


    4/ inadequate signs at the time of incident make it 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 signage was not visible from the angle of driving in to the carpark and any 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 neither known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

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

    NOTE: the carpark has changed the signage at the carpark to make is clear that parking restriction apply. It is believed this has only been changed in the last six months.




    5/ 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 from one year ago 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.


    6/ 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 at the time of the incident.

    (b) The sum pursued exceeds £100.

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

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

    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/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

    9/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    10/ the charge is an unenforceable penalty, 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.


    11/ the claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge, so it is not credible that £226.88 in legal costs and interest were incurred. Nor it is believed that a £40 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.


    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. 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 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 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 prospect of success.





    Thank you.


    Pemalas
    Last edited by Pemalas; 06-07-2017 at 4:00 PM. Reason: spelling mistake
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 6th Jul 17, 3:45 PM
    • 32,767 Posts
    • 16,776 Thanks
    Quentin
    If you are using your real name, then edit it out as well as everything else that identifies you.


    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you
    Last edited by Quentin; 06-07-2017 at 3:47 PM.
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

3,022Posts Today

8,717Users 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