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
    • bigben50
    • By bigben50 10th Jul 17, 3:12 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 1Thanks
    bigben50
    cel and cbcc defence and counterclaim?
    • #1
    • 10th Jul 17, 3:12 PM
    cel and cbcc defence and counterclaim? 10th Jul 17 at 3:12 PM
    Is putting in a counterclaim not going to make them more likely to turn up and fight?


    How much do cbcc charge for a counterclaim to go in, and out of interest, is this a difficult thing to do?


    Just about to send a defence off.


    I've put in a bit about the mrs putting in the wrong car into the ipad-ticket/permit-machine.
    I've also stated that the driver waited in the car (not the keeper.. ie the mrs), and as such there was no 'parking event' in the first place.... could be an interesting point?

    __________________________________________________ __________


    12/ The defendant refutes the 'parking event' as the driver did not leave the vehicle for the duration of the defendants doctors appointment.

    13/ 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 12 June 2017.
    (b) The defendant did apply for a permit whilst the driver waited in the car. The details were put in for another vehicle, Y******K, also owned by the defendant. As such there is no grounds for any claim of loss or damages incurred by the defendant. The claimant was informed of these facts yet still continued to issue further charges and threats of debt collectors
    (c) . A request was submitted to the claimant for records of the ANPR at the time of the alleged incident, specifically Y******K, which would provide clear evidence that there was no breach of the core principle of their alleged contract. The request was declined.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jul 17, 3:20 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 10th Jul 17, 3:20 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Jul 17, 3:20 PM
    Is putting in a counterclaim not going to make them more likely to turn up and fight?
    If they remember! Here, they discontinued their claim then forgot to bother about the counter-claim:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/motorist-awarded-900-for-data.html

    How much do cbcc charge for a counterclaim to go in, and out of interest, is this a difficult thing to do?
    £25, same as any claim for under the threshhold for that sum (Google it). Then another £25 for your hearing.

    Waiting IS the same as parked, you can't say a car wasn't parked just because someone is in it. Waste of time to even say that unless you are merely talking minutes (but if you are, why would she have bought a parking ticket to stay)?

    Just about to send a defence off.
    Errrrmmm...any counter claim is tacked on the end. Show us first. It is filed at the same time as the 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.

    • bigben50
    • By bigben50 10th Jul 17, 10:07 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    bigben50
    • #3
    • 10th Jul 17, 10:07 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Jul 17, 10:07 PM
    Thanks for the speedy reply.
    the full letter:
    Mostly standard.
    It is stressing the bejeezus out of the Mrs.
    I just can't stand these greedy a##les. I've spent ages dredging through posts, but work very strange and hard hours, so am forcibly offline for several days at a time. I really appreciate your expert help here!
    Just about to drop offline again... damn thing has to be in by Friday, and the online submissions is stuffed!
    Counterclaim at end, #12 struck off.
    fyi: doc surgery, enter reg on an ipad at reception for free parking. however if you go into the included pharmacy there was no such sign-in pad. signage has been upped and there are now 2 sign in stations with clearer instruction.
    I did wonder if #13 is playing to their favour in any way, but you didn't mention it so hope its a good point.




    Claim Number:###########

    Civil Enforcement Ltd v ##############

    Statement of Defence

    I am ############, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

    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 license 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 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.

    (b) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information:
    1. The defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
    2. Outstanding amount and break down of costs.

    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. Why the charge arose

    (d) The claim is unsigned.




    3/ 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.


    4/ 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.


    5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (a) No grace period was allowed.

    (b) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.



    (c) Signage particularly poor inside the premises with wholly inadequate means of inputting data/permit request.

    (d) The sum pursued exceeds £100.

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

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


    6/ 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.


    7/ 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.


    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, 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.


    10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. The Defendant suggests the claim/draft claim are templates, so 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/ 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 (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 12 June 2017.
    (b) The defendant did apply for a permit whilst the driver waited in the car. The details were put in for another vehicle, YY53ULK, also owned by the defendant. As such there is no grounds for any claim of loss or damages incurred by the defendant. The claimant was informed of these facts yet still continued to issue further charges and threats of debt collectors
    (c) . A request was submitted to the claimant for records of the ANPR at the time of the alleged incident, specifically YY53ULK, which would provide clear evidence that there was no breach of the core principle of their alleged contract. The request was declined.

    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.

    The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

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




    counterclaim:


    The defendant has suffered great distress at the bullying tactics of civil enforcement ltd and it's subsidiaries with their unrelenting threats of credit rating damage, spiralling demands for money and now threats of court hearings.


    Despite attempting to resolve the matter at the onset, the claimant has forced the defendant to spend a significant amount of time in researching the grounds upon which the claimantis attempting to force payment of what would seem to be an invoice without any form of proper grounds in law. Further to this there seems to be grounds to investigate whether there has been a breach of the DPA in order to harass the registered keeper of a vehicle.


    As such the defendant submits a counterclaim of £750 plus costs


    • bigben50
    • By bigben50 10th Jul 17, 10:33 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    bigben50
    • #4
    • 10th Jul 17, 10:33 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Jul 17, 10:33 PM
    Still not really decided if the counterclaim is a worthy effort. Much as I dislike these cowboys I'm resenting the time they're taking already.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 10th Jul 17, 11:12 PM
    • 16,487 Posts
    • 20,647 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 10th Jul 17, 11:12 PM
    • #5
    • 10th Jul 17, 11:12 PM
    figures of £250 to maybe £500 would be more likely to be favoured in order to win a counterclaim
    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 10th Jul 17, 11:16 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 10th Jul 17, 11:16 PM
    • #6
    • 10th Jul 17, 11:16 PM
    13/ 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.
    Remove the above.

    Your counter claim needs beefing up. We can help with that, and I agree with Redx, you should ask for a lesser sum.
    Remember you have to pay a court fee (you can Google the cost easily and set your level as you feel it right).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 11-07-2017 at 2:57 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.

    • bigben50
    • By bigben50 11th Jul 17, 6:12 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    bigben50
    • #7
    • 11th Jul 17, 6:12 AM
    • #7
    • 11th Jul 17, 6:12 AM
    Hi
    Yes, I saw the submission fees were more. I don't really have the time to put into a counterclaim.. about to set off for a few days of double shifts!
    a cc of 250 is barely worth the effort if it needs beefing up. I'll drop it, need to get the defence in the post by end of day.
    I've removed 13/ as per instruction. Is it ok to send off?
    gpeol?
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 11th Jul 17, 6:49 AM
    • 10,200 Posts
    • 9,342 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    • #8
    • 11th Jul 17, 6:49 AM
    • #8
    • 11th Jul 17, 6:49 AM
    Point 4. Where is the proof it fails POFA? You need to show why.

    Point 5. Same with why signs fail.

    Why are the actual facts in your FYI in your OP missing?
    • bigben50
    • By bigben50 11th Jul 17, 5:34 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    bigben50
    • #9
    • 11th Jul 17, 5:34 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Jul 17, 5:34 PM
    Sorry, newbie, bit overwhelmed with it all. Hope someone can help me tart up my defence... At least so it doesn't get judged against immediately. Got to get it sent off tomorrow latest :-(
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

326Posts Today

1,956Users online

Martin's Twitter