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
    • Ibrarc
    • By Ibrarc 11th Oct 17, 4:17 PM
    • 6Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Ibrarc
    Urgent help please - court letter from Civil Enforcement Ltd
    • #1
    • 11th Oct 17, 4:17 PM
    Urgent help please - court letter from Civil Enforcement Ltd 11th Oct 17 at 4:17 PM
    Hi all,

    I received a County Court claim form dated the 5th October 2017 from Civil Enforcement Ltd for the following:

    Amount claimed: £289.33
    Court fee: £25.00
    Legal representatives costs: £50.00
    Total amount: £364.33

    Particulars of claim are:

    Claimant claims the sum of £289.33 for outstanding debt & damages including £53.33 interest pursuant to S 69 of the County courts act 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates 08/12/2014 to 04/10/17

    Then it says I will provide the defendant with seperate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.

    Now i have absolutely no reconciliation of this parking ticket and have since changed my car.

    Please can anyone help me on what i can do.

    Many thanks for reading and any help or assistance you can provide.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Oct 17, 4:42 PM
    • 16,937 Posts
    • 21,075 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 11th Oct 17, 4:42 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Oct 17, 4:42 PM
    read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread

    follow the BARGEPOLE advice linked in there, ensuring you have logged in online and completed just the AOS

    leave the defence box completely blank

    now read a dozen other similar court claim threads from 2017 only, draft your defence and post it on here for critique
    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
    • Ibrarc
    • By Ibrarc 24th Oct 17, 4:43 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Ibrarc
    • #3
    • 24th Oct 17, 4:43 PM
    • #3
    • 24th Oct 17, 4:43 PM
    I am grateful for all the advice and resources posted here, without them I would not be able to mount this defence.
    I appreciate any help or advice.


    Here is my draft defence:

    In the County Court
    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 Parking Eye 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 5th 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
    • Castle
    • By Castle 24th Oct 17, 4:51 PM
    • 1,310 Posts
    • 1,703 Thanks
    Castle
    • #4
    • 24th Oct 17, 4:51 PM
    • #4
    • 24th Oct 17, 4:51 PM

    Then it says I will provide the defendant with seperate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.
    Originally posted by Ibrarc
    Have they sent the detailed particulars?
    • Ibrarc
    • By Ibrarc 24th Oct 17, 5:30 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Ibrarc
    • #5
    • 24th Oct 17, 5:30 PM
    • #5
    • 24th Oct 17, 5:30 PM
    Have they sent the detailed particulars?
    Originally posted by Castle
    No, nothing of yet.

    Thanks
    • Redx
    • By Redx 24th Oct 17, 5:31 PM
    • 16,937 Posts
    • 21,075 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 24th Oct 17, 5:31 PM
    • #6
    • 24th Oct 17, 5:31 PM
    also read this recent oct2017 one that has the new oct2017 protocols listed

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5729157
    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
    • Ibrarc
    • By Ibrarc 26th Oct 17, 11:44 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Ibrarc
    • #7
    • 26th Oct 17, 11:44 AM
    • #7
    • 26th Oct 17, 11:44 AM
    Have they sent the detailed particulars?
    Originally posted by Castle
    Hi, i received this yesterday and will post up what they wrote.

    Many thanks
    • Ibrarc
    • By Ibrarc 26th Oct 17, 1:09 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Ibrarc
    • #8
    • 26th Oct 17, 1:09 PM
    • #8
    • 26th Oct 17, 1:09 PM
    This was the Schedule of Information & Particulars of Claim:


    Claimant: Civil Enforcement Limited
    Defendant:
    Vehicle reg:
    Date of incident: 08/12/2014
    Arrival time: 08/12/2014 17:26 56
    Departure time: 08/12/2014 18:54 05
    Site details: Kings Heath Retail Park
    Outstanding amount: £364.33 (including legal fees and interest to date)
    Summary of terms: 1 hour maximum free parking – If you exceed the free parking allowance, you agree to pay £100. To deter abuse of this car park, these terms apply 24 hours a day. Additional costs will be incurred if payment is not received within 21 days.



    In the County Court Business Centre

    Between

    Civil Enforcement Limited
    V

    Particulars of claim


    1. At all material times, the Claimant managed the car park the address of which is stated on the attached Schedule of information. The car park is private property.

    2. By way of background, the Claimant uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras at the entrance and exit of the Car Park which identify time of arrival and departure of vehicles from the car park.

    3. There are many clear and visible signs in the Car Park advising drivers of the terms and conditions of use. Drivers are permitted to park in the Car Park in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage and these signs constitute an offer by the Claimant to enter into a contract with drivers.

    4. The key terms of the signs are summarised in the attached Schedule of information.

    5. When the Defendant parked their vehicle (on the date and time as set out in the attached Schedule of information) in the Car Park they accepted, by their conduct the term and conditions of parking. See Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council (2000) 4 All ER 169

    6. The Defendant breached the terms and conditions of the site and as such is liable to pay the Claimant the amounts as set out in the attached Schedule of Information.

    7. The Supreme Court Judgment in the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis has established
    That it is both legal and commercially justifiable for car park operators to implement a disincentive such as the above so as to efficiently manage the Car Park for the benefit of its users. Our charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable and falls within the British Parking Associations guidelines as stated in their Code of Practice.
    8. The Claimant (directly/through its agents) was left with no alternative but to escalate the matter as a result of their non-payment of the debt which further increased the amount awed in accordance with the terms of parking.

    9. The Claimant claims the amounts owed plus court and legal fees and interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to the Claimant at such rate and for such period as the court thinks fit.

    Statement of Truth

    I believe that the facts stated in the Particulars of Claim are true
    I am authorised by the Claimant to sign this document on its behalf.

    Dated this: 11 October 2017
    Signed:



    Ashley Cohen
    Civil Enforcement Limited
    Horton House
    Exchange Flags
    Liverpool L2 3PF
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 26th Oct 17, 1:34 PM
    • 1,185 Posts
    • 1,229 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #9
    • 26th Oct 17, 1:34 PM
    • #9
    • 26th Oct 17, 1:34 PM
    When was the time limit up, and when exactly did they arrive?

    That seems a long delay - 11th october until now. 2nd class?
    • Ibrarc
    • By Ibrarc 26th Oct 17, 1:58 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Ibrarc
    When was the time limit up, and when exactly did they arrive?

    That seems a long delay - 11th october until now. 2nd class?
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Court letter arrived 10/10/2017
    The issue date on the court letter was 05/10/2017
    I did the Acknowledgment of service online on 12/10/2017
    This letter arrived 25/10/2017 (but is dated 11/10/2017)

    They sent it 1st class letter and it has Royal Mail postal date of 24/10/2017 on the envelope

    Thanks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 26th Oct 17, 2:02 PM
    • 4,800 Posts
    • 3,165 Thanks
    KeithP
    They sent it 1st class letter and it has Royal Mail postal date of 24/10/2017 on the envelope
    Originally posted by Ibrarc
    Keep that envelope. It may become significant.
    .
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

3,856Posts Today

7,106Users online

Martin's Twitter