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
    • abigailflo
    • By abigailflo 14th Jun 17, 7:03 PM
    • 254Posts
    • 887Thanks
    abigailflo
    Civil enforcement limited - help please
    • #1
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:03 PM
    Civil enforcement limited - help please 14th Jun 17 at 7:03 PM
    Husband received a CLaim form 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 CLaim form 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 claim form and hopefully you good people will point me in the right direction of how to defend this.
    Last edited by abigailflo; 14-06-2017 at 7:21 PM.
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 14th Jun 17, 7:11 PM
    • 6,336 Posts
    • 8,146 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:11 PM
    • #2
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:11 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by abigailflo
    The only way he could receive a CCJ WHICH RESULTS from a court case in that he did not defend himself or appear in court

    Is that correct ??????
    Last edited by beamerguy; 14-06-2017 at 7:17 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 14th Jun 17, 7:15 PM
    • 33,227 Posts
    • 17,175 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #3
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:15 PM
    • #3
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:15 PM
    You need to clarify.

    Is it a ccj following a claim which was ignored or not a ccj at all but a claim which you want to defend in court?
    • abigailflo
    • By abigailflo 14th Jun 17, 7:20 PM
    • 254 Posts
    • 887 Thanks
    abigailflo
    • #4
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:20 PM
    • #4
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:20 PM
    Sorry! I meant a claim form
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 14th Jun 17, 7:55 PM
    • 33,227 Posts
    • 17,175 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #5
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:55 PM
    • #5
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:55 PM
    In that case go to the.newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum.

    Full details are there on the court process and advice on preparing a defence.

    In the first instance he should acknowledge receipt of the claim which buys an extra 14 days to get the defence in

    When he has it ready post it here for comments
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 14th Jun 17, 7:56 PM
    • 1,169 Posts
    • 2,328 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #6
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:56 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:56 PM
    Acknowledge the claim on the MCOL website stating you will defend the entire claim, but do not click start defence.

    Read post 2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread on page 1 and all included links, which tell you how to proceed with your claim and give examples.

    Read the many other CEL defences on this on forum and copy sections to create your own.

    Post here for review before submitting. Then wait for the notice of discontinuance from CEL.

    Will the vets write a statement for you saying that you were parked fully in compliance with the T&C's?

    What do the particulars of claim actually say was wrong with your parking?
    • abigailflo
    • By abigailflo 14th Jun 17, 8:04 PM
    • 254 Posts
    • 887 Thanks
    abigailflo
    • #7
    • 14th Jun 17, 8:04 PM
    • #7
    • 14th Jun 17, 8:04 PM
    Thank you! I will have a good read - no particulars as yet says will provide full particulars within 14 days. I submitted a letter from the vet confirming appointment date when we first received the parking fine and vets have confirmed they will give me another letter in support but have sent me a list of dates when we visited the vets including the times which covered this date. My husband was literally in the vets for 15 minutes!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jun 17, 8:09 PM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,091 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 14th Jun 17, 8:09 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Jun 17, 8:09 PM
    Easiest way is to copy any other 2017 CEL defence. Our version have ALL quashed the claims, for over a year, from CEL, no hearing, nothing, cases discontinued/stayed. Search the forum for 'CEL claim stayed' and read a couple of recent ones since Easter, and you will see a winning pattern of standard CEL defence wording to plagiarise.

    You are lucky, you have one of the easiest ones to defend, with CEL! Make sure it is acknowledged first on MCOL, then defended by emailing the defence to the CCBC email addy (signed & dated by the person named on the claim).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 14-06-2017 at 8:12 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.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Jun 17, 8:13 PM
    • 15,462 Posts
    • 24,177 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 14th Jun 17, 8:13 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Jun 17, 8:13 PM
    There seem to have been a rash of CEL cases over the past few days.
    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.
    • abigailflo
    • By abigailflo 22nd Jun 17, 8:28 AM
    • 254 Posts
    • 887 Thanks
    abigailflo
    So husband has now received particulars of claim looks like standard particulars but saying permit was needed from the stores for parking in carpark which is totally untrue - you have to enter your reg number of car in keypad at each store on entry which we did at vets - and told them we did this but they have totally ignored the fact we did this! They are quoting Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council (2000) 4 All ER 169

    So I have read the threads and am hoping to use this defence - my question is do I put an extra paragraph about being accustomed of the vets at the time for a pre-arranged appt and therefore parked legally at that time and date? Thanks for all you help

    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 XXXX2017 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.

    (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, and were posted to a non-existent address. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was, nor who they are claiming against; 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.

    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 £326.88 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 XXXX2017
    (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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Jun 17, 9:38 PM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,091 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So I have read the threads and am hoping to use this defence - my question is do I put an extra paragraph about being accustomed of the vets at the time for a pre-arranged appt and therefore parked legally at that time and date?
    Yes - without saying who was driving (unless that cat is already out of the bag). Read this one, and my suggested wording at the start:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5667236

    Adapt that, to explain the situation robustly and put THEM to proof that the driver didn't enter the VRN at the vet's, because it is a fact and you will swear on oath if the Judge requires it, that you did.

    They are quoting Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council (2000) 4 All ER 169
    Good, that case helps your side, not theirs, as regards signs about a charge not being seen. See this defence wording:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72440801#post72440801

    HTH
    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.

    • abigailflo
    • By abigailflo 22nd Jun 17, 10:29 PM
    • 254 Posts
    • 887 Thanks
    abigailflo
    Thank you Coupon mad I've edited my husband's defence

    I, DEFENDANT, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

    1. Whilst the Particulars are very sparse, I have reviewed the parking 'enforcement' regime at the location mentioned in the claim.

    2. There is no clear instruction within the car park about how to obtain a permit or be 'permitted' to park. The signs are very high and with terms buried in small print, contrary to the transparency/fairness requirements of the Consumer Rights Act and contrary to the 'adequate notice' requirement of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012.

    3. When entering the building where I had a pre-booked veterinary appointment at White Cross Vets , despite the lack of clear instructions, I was informed to input the registration details of our parked car into an electronic tablet at reception issued by a member of staff and the registration number was input into that electronic tablet at the reception desk. I have given proof of this pre-arranged appointment supplied by White Cross Vets in the form of an appointment letter to the Claimant by email dated 13th February and by letter dated the same date . I also have been provided a print out of the appointment time and exact time entering the vets by the practice upon which I intend to rely


    4. The Claim Form issued on the XXXX2017 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”.

    5. 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, and were posted to a non-existent address. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was, nor who they are claiming against; 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.

    6. 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.

    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 £326.88 for outstanding debt and damages.

    7. 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

    8. 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

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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 XXXX2017
    (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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Jun 17, 10:31 PM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,091 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    3. When entering the building where I had a pre-booked veterinary appointment at White Cross Vets , despite the lack of clear instructions, I was informed to input the registration details of our parked car into an electronic tablet at reception issued by a member of staff and the registration number was input into that electronic tablet at the reception desk. I have given proof of this pre-arranged appointment supplied by White Cross Vets in the form of an appointment letter to the Claimant by email dated 13th February and by letter dated the same date . I also have been provided a print out of the appointment time and exact time entering the vets by the practice upon which I intend to rely
    Change 'I' to 'we' or it gives away the driver, sort of (on the balance of probabilities).
    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.

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

72Posts Today

3,070Users online

Martin's Twitter