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
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 15th Jun 17, 5:46 PM
    • 25Posts
    • 17Thanks
    puredestiny
    CEL defence
    • #1
    • 15th Jun 17, 5:46 PM
    CEL defence 15th Jun 17 at 5:46 PM
    Just a quick overview of the particulars: The keeper has received a claim form signed Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant's legal representative)

    The alleged offence was 15th December 2016, at which time the driver had used several services on site and had coffee in Costa, also on site. The driver has receipts to back up the services rendered to the amount of just under £150, if that's relevant.

    Having a look through the Google maps street view, there are very visible and large signs on a either side oft the entrance. Although, the signs in the car park are very small and there are only a few scattered around .In fact, I have to look real hard to find any in the main car park. Does this mean I should remove the reference to the signs being being unclear?

    The keeper's defence is below, however, I don't know if the keeper should add extra detail about the driver being on site having services rendered. This has really confused me.

    Also,the driver has evidence of using the services on site, does the keeper or driver need to provide these? Should the keeper or driver include photos of the lack of signage?


    -----------------------

    I am ____, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ____. I currently reside at ____.

    The Claim Form issued on the 8th March 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 “The Legal Team”.

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

    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 licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    2/ 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 covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs. The defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.

    (b)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 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.

    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/ I put the Claimant to strict proof that it 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.

    Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) 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 £322.89 for outstanding debt and damages.

    4/ 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.

    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 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.

    (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 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 £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.

    11/ 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.

    "I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."
    Last edited by puredestiny; 15-06-2017 at 6:59 PM. Reason: Suggestion
Page 2
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 16th Jun 17, 8:52 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    puredestiny
    Absolutely.

    Ordinarily I'd say there'd be a good chance of a cancellation, but with this being CEL and so far down the road, don't be surprised if they ignore the request and press on.

    They are vengeful - when the Coop cancelled their contract with them, they went through their back catalogue of unpaid PCNs at Coop sites and issued mass court claims. As a final farewell salute, the sued 50 Coop employees whose car's were whitelisted and parked up every day for attending work.

    That's what you're dealing with here.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Ah, wow. Vultures. I'll file my defence today and keep the record of emails with the retail centre to add later if needed then. Thank you for clarifying that. Should I add to the defence that the centre has agreed to assist?

    Well, lesson learned to take action on these immediately by contacting the retail centre first.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Jun 17, 8:55 AM
    • 13,142 Posts
    • 20,523 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    By when does your defence have to be submitted? Because if CEL refuse the retailer's request that might be a more powerful argument.
    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.
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 16th Jun 17, 8:57 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    puredestiny
    By when does your defence have to be submitted? Because if CEL refuse the retailer's request that might be a more powerful argument.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Oh, well, I've only acknowledged the claim a little over 24 hours ago, so can certainly hold off a few days. The claim form is dated 12 June
    Last edited by puredestiny; 16-06-2017 at 9:04 AM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Jun 17, 9:05 AM
    • 13,142 Posts
    • 20,523 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Oh, well, I've only acknowledged the claim a little over 24 hours ago, so can certainly hold off a few days.
    Originally posted by puredestiny
    If you've acknowledged within the first 14 days after the official 'Date of Issue' of the court papers, then you get a further 14 days to work on your defence. There are also 5 days added for 'service' to account for postal delivery.

    So you can count 33 days from the Date of Issue to get your true deadline for submission.
    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.
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 16th Jun 17, 9:07 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    puredestiny
    If you've acknowledged within the first 14 days after the official 'Date of Issue' of the court papers, then you get a further 14 days to work on your defence. There are also 5 days added for 'service' to account for postal delivery.

    So you can count 33 days from the Date of Issue to get your true deadline for submission.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Sorry, forgot to put that in my post. Yes the date of issue was the 12th June. So, I'll hold off to hear back from the retail centre and will post back what happens.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 16th Jun 17, 9:08 AM
    • 5,291 Posts
    • 6,719 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Ah, wow. Vultures. I'll file my defence today and keep the record of emails with the retail centre to add later if needed then. Thank you for clarifying that. Should I add to the defence that the centre has agreed to assist?

    Well, lesson learned to take action on these immediately by contacting the retail centre first.
    Originally posted by puredestiny
    The point being .... who employed these cowboys, did they know
    of the VINDICTIVE history of CEL ??

    Chances are that CEL will say it's too late to cancel ?
    However, any fool and his dog will know that it can be cancelled
    right up to the last minute

    The retail centre have been hoodwinked by a known scammer

    Keep on top with the Retail Centre and do not accept any rubbish
    Last edited by beamerguy; 16-06-2017 at 9:13 AM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 16th Jun 17, 9:10 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    puredestiny
    Okay, thanks for the heads up beamerguy. I'll keep on it. Appreciate your input.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Jun 17, 9:12 AM
    • 13,142 Posts
    • 20,523 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Sorry, forgot to put that in my post. Yes the date of issue was the 12th June. So, I'll hold off to hear back from the retail centre and will post back what happens.
    Originally posted by puredestiny
    OK, no need to rush this (but don't sleepwalk past the deadline!). It also gives you some time to see how other defences (and strategies/tactics) are developing as there's been a rash of CEL claims issued this week. There'll be a good number of others on here and PePiPoo who will be going through the same strokes as you.
    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.
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 16th Jun 17, 9:17 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    puredestiny
    OK, no need to rush this (but don't sleepwalk past the deadline!). It also gives you some time to see how other defences (and strategies/tactics) are developing as there's been a rash of CEL claims issued this week. There'll be a good number of others on here and PePiPoo who will be going through the same strokes as you.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    I'll put a reminder on my calendar and I'll keep checking the forums to see what's developing. Thanks for emphasising that point. Definitely don't want them to win by default, so I'll keep on it.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 16th Jun 17, 9:38 AM
    • 5,291 Posts
    • 6,719 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I'll put a reminder on my calendar and I'll keep checking the forums to see what's developing. Thanks for emphasising that point. Definitely don't want them to win by default, so I'll keep on it.
    Originally posted by puredestiny
    Keep up to speed with the way CEL operate
    Also note where they try to trick motorists into believing that
    they will not turn up in court and do, getting a default judgement

    Treat these scammers as pure vermin

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=cel

    Show this link to the Retail centre so they know what they are dealing with
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 16th Jun 17, 9:47 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    puredestiny
    Yes, I did read that somewhere about them tricking you into now showing at court. So, effectively, be prepared to go all the way with this. I'll certainly keep my guard up and come back to this forum quite a lot.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 16th Jun 17, 9:50 AM
    • 5,291 Posts
    • 6,719 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Yes, I did read that somewhere about them tricking you into now showing at court. So, effectively, be prepared to go all the way with this. I'll certainly keep my guard up and come back to this forum quite a lot.
    Originally posted by puredestiny
    YES go all the way. You also have the option to involve the Retail Centre in any action
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 16th Jun 17, 9:56 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    puredestiny
    YES go all the way. You also have the option to involve the Retail Centre in any action
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    That is good to know. I'm heading down to the centre today so I'll take the opportunity to build up a little more evidence. Feel fortunate to have these forums to turn to. You've all been such a great help.
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

2,823Posts Today

6,438Users online

Martin's Twitter