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
    • manxhero
    • By manxhero 21st Jun 17, 12:10 AM
    • 3Posts
    • 2Thanks
    manxhero
    CEL Defence (June 2017)
    • #1
    • 21st Jun 17, 12:10 AM
    CEL Defence (June 2017) 21st Jun 17 at 12:10 AM
    Hello,

    I'm posting my defence with regards to a Claim From issued by Civil Enforcement LTD.

    I've looked through the NEWBIE thread and have already followed the Guide to MCOL & how to acknowledge service.

    As per the advice given on previous threads, I've searched for the latest CEL defence template and adapted it to my requirements.

    Here are the contextual details so far.
    • received PCN on 31/10/2016 for £140. We payed for parking but overstayed by 25min as our son was unwell.
    • we sent an appeal letter explaining the situation and offered to pay the difference on 03/11/2016
    • received a "Response to Representation" letter rejecting our appeal
    • paid for PrivateParkingAppeals to resolve the situation but nothing happened
    • received "Letter Before Action" on the 23/01/2017. This was not signed and ended with "For and behalf of CEL"
    • received a letter from ZZPS Limited reminding us PCN. Balance is now £200.
    • received "Formal Letter of Claim" from Wright Hassall (Is this a joke? Right hassle?)
      Solicitors. Balance is now £236
    • received a reminder from Wright Hassall on 07/04/2017. Signed by Tim Hawker - Head of Debt Recovery Services.
    • received Claim Form on 12/06/2017 for £323.26 (inc Court Fee and Legal representative costs)
    • acknowledged claim on MCOL on 19/06/2017
    • received "Particulars of Claim" on 20/06/2017. Not signed and ended with "For and behalf of CEL"

    In the past, I would have just payed the £60 and accept that it was our fault but recent related events have pushed me to stand up against these practices. At the very least, I'm taking this as a learning experiment. I am grateful for all the advice and resources posted here, without them I would not be able to mount this defence. I would appreciate any help or advice

    Here is my draft defence:

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: ___

    Between:

    Civil Enforcement Limited v ___

    Defence!Statement

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

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

    1. The Claim Form issued on the ____ 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 (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

    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. 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 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 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 £323.26 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. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.!

    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 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. 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 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 12th 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.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

    Signed
    Date
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jun 17, 12:20 AM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,092 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 21st Jun 17, 12:20 AM
    • #2
    • 21st Jun 17, 12:20 AM
    Yes that looks fine - easy, isn't it? CEL should now fold.

    If you'd appealed using the forum template when you got the PCN it would have been cancelled - they are so simple to appeal, would have been over in a week.
    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.

    • manxhero
    • By manxhero 22nd Jun 17, 12:44 AM
    • 3 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    manxhero
    • #3
    • 22nd Jun 17, 12:44 AM
    • #3
    • 22nd Jun 17, 12:44 AM
    Hello again,

    The online form is limited to 122 lines, which is not enough for my defense.
    Can I send a PDF of the defense to the courts directly?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 22nd Jun 17, 8:31 AM
    • 15,462 Posts
    • 24,177 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 22nd Jun 17, 8:31 AM
    • #4
    • 22nd Jun 17, 8:31 AM
    Hello again,

    The online form is limited to 122 lines, which is not enough for my defense.
    Can I send a PDF of the defense to the courts directly?
    Originally posted by manxhero
    Yes. Attach it to an email to the CCBC (check their website for email address). Make sure you place your reference numbers in the covering email.

    Check with the CCBC the day after submission to ensure they have received it. Don't risk making the assumption they have.
    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.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 22nd Jun 17, 9:10 AM
    • 16,497 Posts
    • 20,660 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 22nd Jun 17, 9:10 AM
    • #5
    • 22nd Jun 17, 9:10 AM
    Hello again,

    The online form is limited to 122 lines, which is not enough for my defense.
    Can I send a PDF of the defense to the courts directly?
    Originally posted by manxhero
    also explained last night in this CEL thread here

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5667809

    by lamilad and others

    so as stated on here many times , RESEARCH is the key to success , which includes reading maybe TEN cel court claim threads to get an across the board overview of the whole procedures and wordings

    and numerous posting plus links and words in the NEWBIES thread post #2 tell people NOT TO USE THE ONLINE MCOL BOX for the defence because it destroys the formatting etc
    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
    • manxhero
    • By manxhero 26th Jun 17, 9:53 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    manxhero
    • #6
    • 26th Jun 17, 9:53 PM
    • #6
    • 26th Jun 17, 9:53 PM
    Hello everyone,

    Just an update. I have sent a copy of my PDF defense to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
    as advised by lamilad.
    • NickyStew
    • By NickyStew 13th Jul 17, 4:21 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    NickyStew
    • #7
    • 13th Jul 17, 4:21 PM
    • #7
    • 13th Jul 17, 4:21 PM
    I need to appeal to the Civil Enforcement Ltd as my fine has now gone here. I cannot find an email address to send my appeal to, no link on the letter, can anyone help? Also can i send the BCP template? Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jul 17, 4:30 PM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,092 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 13th Jul 17, 4:30 PM
    • #8
    • 13th Jul 17, 4:30 PM
    I need to appeal to the Civil Enforcement Ltd as my fine has now gone here. I cannot find an email address to send my appeal to, no link on the letter, can anyone help? Also can i send the BCP template? Thanks
    Originally posted by NickyStew
    You appeal as the letter tells you, or on their website.

    This is not your thread, no reply here please.
    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.

    • AJMorton
    • By AJMorton 31st Jul 17, 1:29 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    AJMorton
    • #9
    • 31st Jul 17, 1:29 PM
    • #9
    • 31st Jul 17, 1:29 PM
    Hi Manxhero

    I have a very similar situation as yourself and submitted my defence a couple of weeks ago, was just curious if you have had any conclusion yet?

    Many thanks
    AM
    • EmKoh
    • By EmKoh 17th Aug 17, 3:47 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    EmKoh
    Response to Claim Form
    I've been scrolling through the pages here for a few hours and I'm ashamed to say I am still none the wiser on what to say in response to the claim form I received today.


    I got a PCN from UK Parking Management Ltd last Dec and on advise from here I replied refusing to pay as there was inadequate parking notices at the time I parked there. This is a new build street built across the road from my house. I have a permit from the council to park on my street, however this new street was private (unbeknownst to me) All it said was 'Permit Holders only' and I was so I parked there, then got hit with a PCN. Anyway I have advised them I won't be paying and have subsequently ignored the letters from Gladstones.
    I have now received a claim form to fill out and reading up on here the general advise seems to be to write a stern letter back to Gladstones in the hope they don't take things to court.
    My question is, is there a template I can use that would benefit my case. I keep looking on different threads and I'm just getting more and more confused if I'm being honest.
    Can someone please help? I'm against the clock here
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 17th Aug 17, 3:56 PM
    • 33,227 Posts
    • 17,175 Thanks
    Quentin
    You need to start your own thread. Don't hijack someone else's - you just cause confusion.

    Court action is covered in the newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum which everyone is politely asked to read before posting here
    • TonyQ
    • By TonyQ 11th Sep 17, 5:29 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TonyQ
    Manxhero how did you get on mate with that defence in court??
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

320Posts Today

4,297Users online

Martin's Twitter