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
    • ColetteMT
    • By ColetteMT 10th Jul 17, 9:30 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 4Thanks
    ColetteMT
    Claim Form stage
    • #1
    • 10th Jul 17, 9:30 PM
    Claim Form stage 10th Jul 17 at 9:30 PM
    Hello, Looking for help on the next stages please.
    I have now received a claim form from civil enforcement limited.
    I have acknowledged the claim and put nothing in the defence box. I have since received a letter from CEL which is titled particulars of the claim.
    I am not sure on the next steps and what to do now, Any help appreciated.
    Last edited by ColetteMT; 10-07-2017 at 10:03 PM.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 10th Jul 17, 9:41 PM
    • 15,486 Posts
    • 19,571 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 10th Jul 17, 9:41 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Jul 17, 9:41 PM
    see post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread

    then find and adapt any of the recent deluge of CEL defences posted on here over the last 6 weeks or so (and ensure it acknowledges and rebuts the POC letter)

    once drafted , post it on here for critique, minus all personal info etc

    and edit post #1 and remove any hint of who was driving

    the correct terms are

    THE DRIVER

    THE KEEPER
    Last edited by Redx; 10-07-2017 at 9:49 PM.
    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, 9:45 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,350 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 10th Jul 17, 9:45 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Jul 17, 9:45 PM
    You will definitely learn most by reading lots of other CEL defences, no need to even be good at searching forums - we have so many you could merely read back 20 pages on here and find several examples from the past week.

    You can copy them, and could bookmark a couple where they are ahead of you, to see what happens next. DQ stage and then if they proceed (which they may not, it's not inevitable and certainly not with CEL!) witness statement, then hearing, where you smash their baseless claim into smithereens.

    Don't say who was driving, not even on this thread. It can be vital.
    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.

    • ColetteMT
    • By ColetteMT 10th Jul 17, 9:52 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    ColetteMT
    • #4
    • 10th Jul 17, 9:52 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Jul 17, 9:52 PM
    Thank you all, this is what i have used.
    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number ****
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited v ****
    Defence Statement

    I am X the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ** I currently reside at ****

    The Claim Form issued on the 12th June 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”.

    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 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.

    2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
    (a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’.
    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
    (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.

    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. The PCN was issued 28 days after the incident.
    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 £321.45 for outstanding debt and damages.

    4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) 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.
    (b) Non-existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (c) 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.
    (d) 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.

    5/ 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.

    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:

    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.

    10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge... I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    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 7th April 2017
    (b) not got planning permission from the local council to use the ANPR machine or erect their signage in the car park.

    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 believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Signed
    • Redx
    • By Redx 10th Jul 17, 9:58 PM
    • 15,486 Posts
    • 19,571 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 10th Jul 17, 9:58 PM
    • #5
    • 10th Jul 17, 9:58 PM
    edit post #1 asap
    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
    • ColetteMT
    • By ColetteMT 10th Jul 17, 10:02 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    ColetteMT
    • #6
    • 10th Jul 17, 10:02 PM
    • #6
    • 10th Jul 17, 10:02 PM
    Just to add that I have checked the date and on the particulars of claim they state that the offence took place in October when in fact it was in September. Where in my defence letter do i comment on this?
    • ColetteMT
    • By ColetteMT 11th Jul 17, 3:19 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    ColetteMT
    • #7
    • 11th Jul 17, 3:19 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Jul 17, 3:19 PM
    Advice please - Any adjustment required to my letter please.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 3:28 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,350 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 11th Jul 17, 3:28 PM
    • #8
    • 11th Jul 17, 3:28 PM
    Just to add that I have checked the date and on the particulars of claim they state that the offence took place in October when in fact it was in September. Where in my defence letter do i comment on this?
    Originally posted by ColetteMT
    You could adjust this bit:

    (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. The particulars of claim they state that the alleged event took place in October 2016, but I have no knowledge of any parking 'contravention' then.

    Is this £ figure correct for your case? Is it even about permits (rare for CEL car parks)?
    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 £321.45 for outstanding debt and damages.

    Also you need to do a final, word for word proof-read, because your date is wrong by months, here:
    (a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 7th April 2017

    Do you know this is true, if not then remove it:
    (b) not got planning permission from the local council to use the ANPR machine or erect their signage in the car park.

    HTH, apart from that, go for it!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 11-07-2017 at 3:31 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.

    • ColetteMT
    • By ColetteMT 11th Jul 17, 3:48 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    ColetteMT
    • #9
    • 11th Jul 17, 3:48 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Jul 17, 3:48 PM
    Thanks Coupon Mad.
    The amount is correct - that is the cost they have suggested including a court fee and a legal rep costs of £75.
    It isn't about permits. The vehicle was parked in a car park when shops were closed.

    Will read through and amend dates.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 3:53 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,350 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK, remove the words 'nor the permit information'.

    Read other CEL cases ahead of yours, search the forum. They proceed to DQ stage (explained in the NEWBIES thread) but I don't expect hearings in their cases. If they do try hearings, I don't expect any posters here to lose, either! Have confidence.
    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

1,738Posts Today

8,493Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • 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

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin