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
    • kappie
    • By kappie 7th Oct 17, 3:34 AM
    • 25Posts
    • 1Thanks
    kappie
    civil enforcement
    • #1
    • 7th Oct 17, 3:34 AM
    civil enforcement 7th Oct 17 at 3:34 AM
    need help i have received claim form county court and dont know what do .
    iv been some threads but its giving me headache.
    i was not the driver, and iv not received a letter before action
Page 2
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Oct 17, 7:55 PM
    • 4,800 Posts
    • 3,167 Thanks
    KeithP
    Dont know where to look i need some help
    Originally posted by kappie
    Stick civil enforcement defence in the forum's search facility, choose show posts and read several posts. I do recall a thread by claxtome about fluttering tickets eventually arrived at a good defence.

    Yes, find a good one, but it may still need extensive tailoring to fit your circumstances.
    .
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 7th Oct 17, 8:00 PM
    • 1,201 Posts
    • 2,387 Thanks
    Lamilad
    I have change the parking charge section do you think its better
    Originally posted by kappie
    No, you need to find a better defence and start again. The first 2 paras are ok (but in the wrong order). From there on its a jumbled mess of repetitive and irrelevant points. The stuff on PoFA just doesn't make sense.

    It looks like you've taken bits from other defences, shaken them up in a bag and chucked them out on your thread.

    Find CEL defences which have received good feedback from forum regulars. But you must edit them to suit your case and make sure what you are saying is relevant.
    • kappie
    • By kappie 7th Oct 17, 8:55 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kappie
    cheers for your comments
    iv managed to find some better defences
    i was about to give up and pay the dam thing
    Last edited by kappie; 07-10-2017 at 8:58 PM.
    • kappie
    • By kappie 8th Oct 17, 9:34 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kappie
    found some drafts identical to my situation
    what do you think?

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

    Between:

    ############## 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 ####### 2017 by ############## was not
    correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “#################### (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 £349.74 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 ########## 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 ##########

    (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
    • kappie
    • By kappie 8th Oct 17, 3:15 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kappie
    i have re done a defence statement for cel pcn
    is there anyone who could advise if its ok
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 8th Oct 17, 5:20 PM
    • 1,201 Posts
    • 2,387 Thanks
    Lamilad
    much better.

    I currently reside at #########################################
    Remove - you don't need to state your address

    "e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

    (ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    Is this true... have you checked?

    ...a definite improvement but still needs work.... I think your point on pofa needs to be stronger and you need something about no locus standi - a chain of contracts from the landowner showing they had authority to issue parking charges and sue people in their own name
    • kappie
    • By kappie 8th Oct 17, 6:30 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kappie
    the thing is that car park was re surfaced 12 mths ago with actual parking bays painted on, before that it was rough land with lose concrete and large pot holes , no parking bay just park where you like .i would never use it . it now has new fancy cameras and signs but i dont know if it is still one of CEL's
    • kappie
    • By kappie 8th Oct 17, 8:02 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kappie
    been down to check
    there are yellow signs and in small writing that says
    "we use ANPR cameras to monitor this private property and will apply to the DVLA to obtain your details in order to send you a parking charge notice(PCN)"
    DON'T NO IF THESE ARE NEW SINCE THE MAKE OVER
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 9th Oct 17, 12:14 AM
    • 1,201 Posts
    • 2,387 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Just remove the line about ANPR - it's not a strong point anyway.
    • kappie
    • By kappie 9th Oct 17, 5:05 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kappie
    Should they say they use anpr at the entrance to the car park before the car has parked

    found this by bpa
    As with all methods of enforcement on private land, proper enforcement is dependant on clear signage that is visible from all points of the car park. The BPA’s revised Code of Practice contains recommendations for the size, placement and information for private car park signage, including the fact that the car park is monitored by ANPR technology and that DVLA with be contacted to obtain keeper details in the event of a parking contravention occurring.
    Last edited by kappie; 09-10-2017 at 5:31 PM. Reason: spelling
    • kappie
    • By kappie 9th Oct 17, 9:07 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kappie
    is anyone out there to help me please i know you must all be very busy
    can anyone tell me if my posts are coming up i never see a green dot on the board when i post new
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Oct 17, 9:09 PM
    • 33,610 Posts
    • 17,510 Thanks
    Quentin
    Green dot means logged in now
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Oct 17, 9:12 PM
    • 33,610 Posts
    • 17,510 Thanks
    Quentin
    Should they say they use anpr at the entrance to the car park before the car has parked

    found this by bpa
    As with all methods of enforcement on private land, proper enforcement is dependant on clear signage that is visible from all points of the car park. The BPA’s revised Code of Practice contains recommendations for the size, placement and information for private car park signage, including the fact that the car park is monitored by ANPR technology and that DVLA with be contacted to obtain keeper details in the event of a parking contravention occurring.
    Originally posted by kappie
    As you say you can't find out whether they had sign up on the day the car was parked isn't it a dangerous avenue to keep going down?


    Follow the advice in # 29
    • kappie
    • By kappie 9th Oct 17, 9:22 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kappie
    yes i will remove anpr
    dont know want other point to put in

    lamilad
    ".... I think your point on pofa needs to be stronger and you need something about no locus standi - a chain of contracts from the landowner showing they had authority to issue parking charges and sue people in their own name"
    • kappie
    • By kappie 9th Oct 17, 10:01 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kappie
    i have removed the bits lamilad advised
    does it look better


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

    Between:

    ############## v ########

    Defence Statement

    I am ########, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle ##############.
    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

    1. The Claim Form issued on the ####### 2017 by ############## was not
    correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “#################### (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 £349.74 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) 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.
    (iii) 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.
    (iv) 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 ########## 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 4th 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
    • kappie
    • By kappie 10th Oct 17, 6:37 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kappie
    can someone check over my defence statement please
    and let me know if its ok
    cheers
    • kappie
    • By kappie 11th Oct 17, 1:06 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kappie
    new defence statement
    would love someone to advise if this would be ok as ds

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

    1. The Claim Form issued on the #DATE# 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 “Civil Enforcement Limited”. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by “Civil Enforcement Limited” as the Claimant’s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

    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

    h) 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.!
    There can be no 'presumption' by the claimant that the keeper was the driver. 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) 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 £***.** 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

    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. . 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.

    iii 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.

    iv. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

    e) 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. 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.

    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 #DATE# 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
    • Dfarenden
    • By Dfarenden 11th Oct 17, 8:23 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Dfarenden
    County Court business centre letter re PNC
    I need some advice!

    In January 2015 I refuted a PNC from Civil Parking Enforcement Ltd.

    Today (11th October 2017) I receive a County Court Business Centre letter where Civil Enforcement Ltd have requested a amount of £362.16.

    Over the last two years I have written to them asking for evidence that parking signage was in place (which I'm sure their wasn't) but they have failed to send me this evidence!

    Do I pay the fine or should I contest it? If I contest do I run the risk of getting a CCJ against me if it goes in their favour and the courts make me pay the fine ?

    Thanks
    • waamo
    • By waamo 11th Oct 17, 8:29 PM
    • 2,160 Posts
    • 2,582 Thanks
    waamo
    You need to start your own thread and not hijack someone elses.
    This space for hire.
    • Dfarenden
    • By Dfarenden 11th Oct 17, 8:39 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Dfarenden
    I need some advice!

    In January 2015 I refuted a PNC from Civil Parking Enforcement Ltd.

    Today (11th October 2017) I receive a County Court Business Centre letter where Civil Enforcement Ltd have requested a amount of £362.16.

    Over the last two years I have written to them asking for evidence that parking signage was in place (which I'm sure their wasn't) but they have failed to send me this evidence!

    Do I pay the fine or should I contest it? If I contest do I run the risk of getting a CCJ against me if it goes in their favour and the courts make me pay the fine ?

    Thanks
    Originally posted by Dfarenden
    Your a help chap aren't you!!

    Sorry new to this
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

3,298Posts Today

7,533Users online

Martin's Twitter