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
    • s1290
    • By s1290 14th Jun 17, 12:52 PM
    • 14Posts
    • 5Thanks
    s1290
    CEL Court Claim, but I was out of the country when the car was parked'
    • #1
    • 14th Jun 17, 12:52 PM
    CEL Court Claim, but I was out of the country when the car was parked' 14th Jun 17 at 12:52 PM
    Hi There,

    I have just received a Claim Form from Northampton county court the claim is for £325.33 for parking in a sainsburys (apparently) the company claiming is civil enforcement ltd , I was on holiday during this time with proof in passport stamps, tickets etc and was not aware my car was used during this time i have had no previous correspondence for a ticket.

    I have aknowledged the claim and ticked the defend box via the online system, I dont have a clue what to do next or where i stand here.
    Last edited by s1290; 14-06-2017 at 4:16 PM. Reason: Title change
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Jun 17, 2:34 PM
    • 50,098 Posts
    • 63,477 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    he has written over 120 defences for members on pepipoo
    No he hasn't...
    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 18th Jun 17, 2:50 PM
    • 15,516 Posts
    • 19,601 Thanks
    Redx
    I read it here in post #4

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5664484

    I did not mean to infer that they were all members of pepipoo, just that GAN posted his claim on pepipoo (it may well be that none of them were actual pepipoo members)

    but either way, CEL dont seem to follow through on well defended court claims
    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 18th Jun 17, 2:57 PM
    • 50,098 Posts
    • 63,477 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes I read it too, and Gan's a great contributor on pepipoo, no question he's a main contributor there and bloody good. But he hasn't written 120 defences for forum members...not that it matters!

    Main point is agreed: he has found, and we have found, that CEL don't contest a decent defence.
    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.

    • s1290
    • By s1290 19th Jun 17, 12:58 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    s1290
    In the County Court Business Centre
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited
    V
    DEFENDANT

    I, The 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 09 Jun 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” (Claimants legal representative).


    2. This Claimant has not complied with the 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 for the defendant.

    (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 suspected 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 outlined below.

    a) 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 £325.33 for outstanding debt and damages.
    a).The notice to keeper that CEL issues are not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, sch 4 and therefore there is no keeper liability. Only the driver is liable.


    b). I was not the driver for the alleged claim. I could not be as I was out of the country at the time. I will provide proof of this in my evidence and witness statement.

    C) It is merely impossible to enter into such terms and the contractual agreement as suggested by the claimant of entering land without any such presence.

    d). There is therefore no cause of action against me.

    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 as is suggested these drafts are being sent out to claim by ‘chance’ and are generic and not specific.

    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:
    (d) 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.
    (e) Non-existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (f) 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.
    (g) 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.
    (h) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    (i) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (j) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (k) The sum pursued exceeds £100 and much over with falsely added legal costs.
    (l) 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 09 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 for the claimant.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and accurate to the defence of this claim.

    Signed - Me
    Date - Today

    Hi There all ,I have completed the above not verbatim and seems much much relevant for my defence ,Please feel free to criticise.
    Reading over and re wording alongside copies of my passport and flight bookings, I do not think CEL have got a chance of claiming that someone enters into there fake contract without merely being present in the land.
    • s1290
    • By s1290 19th Jun 17, 4:18 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    s1290
    Also when emailing this over to CCBC + CEL should I attach the copies of my passport stamp and flight tickets to the court ?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 19th Jun 17, 4:21 PM
    • 15,516 Posts
    • 19,601 Thanks
    Redx
    not for the initial defence , no

    the evidence stage comes in a few months , a few weeks before the actual court date

    readt the various stages in post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread, where BARGEPOLE explains them
    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
    • s1290
    • By s1290 19th Jun 17, 5:27 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    s1290
    Thank you,that is if it reaches court stage which CEL apparently never does.I have read the NEWBIES Thread and various info and current defences, does the above defence seem complete for me to send off ?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Jun 17, 6:00 PM
    • 50,098 Posts
    • 63,477 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yep, looks good enough to kill it!
    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.

    • s1290
    • By s1290 19th Jun 17, 6:56 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    s1290
    Final Questions
    Hi there coupon mad,


    last question before I send correct me if I am wrong,


    I will send this off to both CCBC and CEL via E-mail as a PDF attachment and another in the post for CCBC (just incase) - Do I need to sign and scan or can I electronically sign ?


    Also once sent do I need to fill out the online MCOL defense section or just forget that bit ?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Jun 17, 6:57 PM
    • 50,098 Posts
    • 63,477 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Personally I would sign & date a hard copy, then scan that.

    Once sent by email to the CCBC, you do not need to update MCOL.
    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.

    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 19th Jun 17, 7:03 PM
    • 885 Posts
    • 1,857 Thanks
    Lamilad
    and another in the post for CCBC (just incase)
    Don't waste money on a stamp. Just ring the court to confirm they've received your email
    • s1290
    • By s1290 20th Jun 17, 11:09 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    s1290
    Dear Sir,

    Thank you for your e-mail.

    With reference to your claim response, I would like to advise that it is herewith returned to you as invalid because it has been completed by a third party. This cannot be accepted as a valid defence as any defence must be signed by the Defendant or their authorised legal representative.

    Please be advised that to become a litigation friend you need to obtain authorisation from a Local Court and this authorisation must be enclosed with your response. You are advised to seek legal advice regarding this matter.

    As you have a limited time to reply to the claim form, you may wish to ensure the defence is amended and returned promptly.
    If you do not complete this form correctly within the prescribed time, the Claimants or their Solicitors may enter Judgment against you in default.

    If you require any further information please contact our helpdesk on the number above. Alternatively you can email us at ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; Please ensure that you state the above case number in the subject heading of your email.
    You may also find it useful to visit the frequently asked questions (FAQ’s) section of our website. To locate this page you should go to www.justice.gov.uk and search for ‘CCBC’.


    sorry guys i had this returned ^

    Is this because i filled in the date electronically or is it because i did not put my name and kept DEFENDANT at the top ?
    Last edited by s1290; 20-06-2017 at 11:15 AM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th Jun 17, 12:03 PM
    • 14,573 Posts
    • 22,931 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Please phone the CCBC, they can tell you exactly why, otherwise we are just guessing. Best get advice from the horse's mouth on this.
    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.
    • s1290
    • By s1290 20th Jun 17, 12:05 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    s1290
    Yeah the error was down to the reference one of the numbers was wrong - false alarm.
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

202Posts Today

1,461Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @thismorning: 'Sometimes the best gift is releasing somebody else from the obligation of having to give to you' says @MartinSLewis. Do y?

  • 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

  • Follow Martin