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
    • plymouth_damo
    • By plymouth_damo 5th Oct 17, 5:29 PM
    • 31Posts
    • 14Thanks
    plymouth_damo
    HELP! CEL County Court Business Centre Claim (x2)
    • #1
    • 5th Oct 17, 5:29 PM
    HELP! CEL County Court Business Centre Claim (x2) 5th Oct 17 at 5:29 PM
    Hi MSE

    I was wondering if you could help me.

    Have just received a CCBC form from CEL for what I am assuming is a a parking infringement but to be honest the claim is from so long ago I can't remember.

    I have read the newbies thread, here is the particulars of the claim:

    Will put all the particulars of claim below:

    Outstanding Debt and damages
    DATE-DESCRIPTION-AMOUNT-DUE DATE
    17/08/15 ref********** 236.00 18/08/15

    Total Due-236.00
    (ref:ce-service website URL or Tel:01158225020)
    The claimant claims the sum of 276.19 for
    outstanding debt and damages
    including 40.19 interest pursuant to
    s.69 if the county courts Act 1984
    Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to - 02/10/17
    Same rate to judgement or (sooner) payment
    Daily rate to judgement- 0.05
    Total debt and interest due - 276.19
    I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.



    Honestly I have no knowledge or recollection of this infringement, its possible they have written to me in the past regarding this but I tend to ignore all civil parking letters of claim, but I have no recollection of such correspondence being received. I have also since sold that vehicle so am referring to the vehicle I had at the time of alleged claim in my draft defence.

    THEY HAVE ACTUALLY CLAIMED THIS ON TWO SEPARATE CCBC Claim forms with DIFFERENT claim numbers (same reference and amounts)

    I have acknowledged service on BOTH claims extending my deadline to the 28 days via MCOL (and the guidelines on the AOS thread).


    I have found the template CEL defence (June 17) and was wondering if you could help me tailor it, particularly as I have no recollection of any of the details of this infringement and also the fact they have sent out 2 claims, would i need to defend both with the same defence or defend one and claim DUPLICATION on the other?



    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: ***********

    Between:

    Civil Enforcement Limited v ************

    Defence Statement

    I am *************, the defendant in this matter and was the 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 £276.19 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 £40.19 and 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.

    11. In the Beavis case, Mr Beavis was an admitted driver who accepted that he had seen the signs and that a contract existed. None of those facts match this matter.

    12. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the days in question, which were unremarkable. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car some years later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

    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 3rd October 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



    (Please please, and help and advice would be gratefully received!)
    Last edited by plymouth_damo; 10-10-2017 at 2:37 AM.
Page 4
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 4th Nov 17, 9:45 PM
    • 4,800 Posts
    • 3,166 Thanks
    KeithP
    So write another letter to get them to apply for relief from sanction, how would I word this (is there a template I can use for this or not as this is in relation to the new October 1st process?) what happens if they do not respond?

    In the mean time you said max of 14 days for a defense...what is my final defense submission deadline as I am totally lost now which date to go by now
    Originally posted by plymouth_damo
    Doesn't post #38 have your answers?

    And the word is defence.
    .
    • plymouth_damo
    • By plymouth_damo 4th Nov 17, 9:52 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    plymouth_damo
    Doesn't post #38 have your answers?

    And the word is defence.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Thankyou for the spelling check.

    Yes I understand it’s 14 days from receipt of the full particulars, but which date do I use the letter or the envelope? Surely it can’t be the letter as that would be less time then the original claims deadline for defenCe?

    Am just seeking clarity, I apologise if am confused but not being an expert andso many dates here am sure you can understand how easy it is to get confused?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 5th Nov 17, 11:16 AM
    • 1,757 Posts
    • 2,873 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    14 days from the second working day after the PoC were posted (the postmark on the envelope)
    Last edited by Loadsofchildren123; 05-11-2017 at 11:19 AM.
    • plymouth_damo
    • By plymouth_damo 5th Nov 17, 1:57 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    plymouth_damo
    14 days from the second working day after the PoC were posted (the postmark on the envelope)
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Thankyou for the answer...ok, so by my calculations that makes it 8th November.

    Johnersh...(or anyone!) is there any alterations I should add to my original posted defence now....taking into consideration the lack of reply to my request for further detailed evidence as required by the new October 1st pre-court process, also taking into account I will be writing a separate letter to the claimant asking them asking them to apply to the court for relief from sanction if they wish to continue as advised.

    I will look to submit the final defence on 7th with a followup call next day to confirm receipt...does this sound correct?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 5th Nov 17, 2:42 PM
    • 1,757 Posts
    • 2,873 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Someone n another thread says you get email confirmation your defence has been received. Phoning them seems difficult as you can get stuck in a queue and then it times out
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 5th Nov 17, 4:35 PM
    • 348 Posts
    • 353 Thanks
    claxtome
    Someone n another thread says you get email confirmation your defence has been received. Phoning them seems difficult as you can get stuck in a queue and then it times out
    The person who posted about an email confirmation was me.

    I haven't emailed a defence statement myself I have always printed and posted it. Was my preference.
    Having said this I did recently email a Directions Questionnaire and almost immediately received a generic confirmation email from CCBC.
    Your choice....
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Nov 17, 11:46 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If the POC were backdated and you kept the envelope that proved they were not posted when dated, PLEASE NOW forward the complaint you made to the CCBC, to another email address.

    We need LOTS of these to fly into a specific inbox now:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73400735#post73400735

    Once that has been done, please confirm. We need to bombard the CCBC (specifically to Amanda Beck who is aware of this scam) with evidence about CEL.

    Do this - even if you've already emailed a complaint - PLEASE forward it now!
    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.

    • plymouth_damo
    • By plymouth_damo 7th Dec 17, 1:19 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    plymouth_damo
    Will forward a complaint to Amanda as still have envelope and convering letter.

    UPDATE
    Have now received DQ for claim 1 (the defended claim)
    Nothing for claim 2, and not had a response from CCBC regarding my request to have claim 2 struck out or CEL in my request for them to discontinue the claim. What should my next step for claim 2 be (remember that claim 2 has had no detailed particulars received and no defence submitted as I questioned its validity to both claimant and court)

    Do I just follow Bargepoles guide for the DQ to claim 1?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 7th Dec 17, 9:13 AM
    • 1,757 Posts
    • 2,873 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Claim 1: yes


    Claim 2: write again enclosing a copy of your original correspondence. Reiterate the point that you are not serving a defence because the further PoC have still not been served and therefore time is not running for you to file a defence. Ask again for the claim to be struck out because it is unconscionable that it should just be allowed to remain as a live claim when the Claimant is doing nothing to progress it and you have brought to everyone's attention that it is a duplicate claim. Copy your letter to CEL and tell the court that you've sent them a copy.


    I'd also attach that letter, plus the previous letter, with a copy of the claim, to the DQ being submitted in relation to Claim 1. What happens next with Claim 1 is once the DQs are received, the file gets sent to your local court. A judge then looks at it for the first time and makes a standard order confirming allocation to small claims and setting down a timetable for WSs, trial, hearing fee etc. Sometimes judges will really look at the documents, see that something is amiss and make other orders, such as requiring a C to make out their case properly and for you to file an amended defence once they've done so. Sometimes a case may be struck out at this stage. The point is that you want to highlight with your DQ the issue with Claim 2 which is a duplicate and hope that the judge may do something about it.


    Something to bear in mind is that nobody at MCOL is legally qualified. So this is the first time that anyone who has any clue about the rules and what they are doing is when the file is transferred and looked at by a judge.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 7th Dec 17, 9:29 AM
    • 752 Posts
    • 1,396 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Ok this is odd. And obviously you have the documents to review not us....

    But on the basis that "claim 2" is clearly endorsed 'particulars to follow' and you haven't had any, then there is no defence that you can prepare. Noone here has checked that. You must read your documents carefully and the court rules.

    Personally, I'd put them on notice and apply to strike claim 2 out. That's just me. If successful you'd get £100 back, but there's a risk. You're not me though, so that aggressive take may not be helpful

    On my reading of CPR 7.5 once 4 months have elapsed since the claim was issued, the claim is dead for want of particularisation, it being past the latest date for service of the claim form (which is also the latest possible date for Particulars).

    Naturally, the claimant is already in breach of the requirement to serve 14 days after service, so one may envisage that their prospects of getting relief from sanction are poor.

    Was claim 1 or claim 2 issued first or were they same day? Am I right in saying they both relate to exactly the same ticket?

    You are required to a DQ for claim 1. Claim 2 is not in play yet so needs no timetable (no pleadings have been filed). It's possible the Claimant has abandoned it.

    I would go "off piste" and attach to the DQ for claim1 a very short letter explaining the position regarding the duplicate claim (assuming it is exactly that) aka claim 2 and requesting that the two proceedings relate to the same matter, that claim 2 is unparticularised and should be struck out.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 7th Dec 17, 9:30 AM
    • 752 Posts
    • 1,396 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Ha! Spent so long typing LoC123 beat me to it!
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 7th Dec 17, 3:32 PM
    • 1,757 Posts
    • 2,873 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I was wondering where my credit was!!!!
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 7th Dec 17, 6:54 PM
    • 752 Posts
    • 1,396 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I was wondering where my credit was!!!!
    Wouldn't dream of taking your work product without permission (or paying for it)! Happily for the o/p a not dissimilar take between us.
    • Confidentality
    • By Confidentality 8th Dec 17, 4:40 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Confidentality
    OP the same thing happened to me.
    Duplicate claims filed on 3/10/2017
    Unfortunately for me I did not realise there was a duplicate claim.
    When the POC arrived late and without the 7.8? paperwork I went online and file AoS.
    I later received a Judgement in Default.
    I rang the court and they said there have been no AoS and it must have been a blip, so I would need to appeal.

    What transpired the following week was that CEL had issued duplicate Claims
    Presuming the Claim numbers are sequential.
    Claim starting D5 is still ongoing in the courts as I had filed the AoS and the Court tells me I have to file a Defence ASAP as a judgment in default can be made against me at any time. No PoC were ever received by me in respect of the D5 Claim.
    The D6 Claim issued on the same day - POC dated 11/10 arrived 25/10 envelope date stamped 23/10.
    I didn't file AoS online for this as I did not realise there were duplicate proceedings - a Judgement in Default has been made against me.
    I'm not sure how they managed to get a judgement as the Particulars were not compliant and a certificate of service would have shown they were send out of time (unless of course CEL lied on the CoS).

    Now I have to pay to Appeal against the duplicate Claim to get that decision by the court set aside, whilst also defending the other matter which is still ongoing.

    Nightmare!!

    Good job you checked the Claim reference numbers, I didn't, I only read the scant particulars on the Claim Form which were identical to the previous one sent and thought it was a routine further service of the same documents.

    I did speak to the court and told them of the duplicate proceedings. They asked me to Email them with a scanned copy everything I got from CEL, providing both Claim references. I did that. I got a confirmation letter saying the information was on file. I rang them up and asked what they were going to do about it and the reply was 'nothing' as the courts don't get involved (so much for rule 1 which says they should) and it was up to me to continue to contest both matters.

    Good luck in defending both. I'll be following this post as I'm interested to see how you get on.
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

287Posts Today

1,465Users online

Martin's Twitter