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
    • ro80rob
    • By ro80rob 12th Oct 17, 11:17 AM
    • 17Posts
    • 8Thanks
    ro80rob
    Idiot I know (I paid up), but court claim form issued
    • #1
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:17 AM
    Idiot I know (I paid up), but court claim form issued 12th Oct 17 at 11:17 AM
    Hello

    My daughter as the RK got a PCN from Civil Enforcement ltd (CEL) in 2015, followed up by several letters and finally a Court Claim Form.
    I was keen to fight this, but I was ultimately put under a lot of pressure to just sort this, as we didn't want to run the risk of her ending up (even accidentally) with a CCJ. I know it's just a question of going through a process and a successful outcome is pretty much guaranteed, but when you are told by your wife that if anything went wrong and a CCJ ended up on my daughter's record, I would never be forgiven, it's just one of those rock and hard place things for me.

    Anyway, I'm now stuck again.
    In the 'particulars of claim' section on the form, CEL state their phone number and website.
    Going to the website, I was able to put the PCN in and go to the payment section, and pay the £236 that was owing (I know, I groaned too).
    The question is, what do I do about the court claim form
    I then thought I would go into MCOL and accept the claim, except that I cannot fill in the online admission form as it doesn't offer that as an option (just instructions on what to do, which is take or send the money to CEL). I would also be admitting to paying £359,05, which includes interest, legal fees and court costs. If I try to contact CEL by phone, all I get is the automated system asking for the PCN, which is now invalid as it's paid. Their website suggests that during office hours, you can speak to an operator, but you can't get past the automated system and I don't have a valid PCN anymore.

    How do I proceed? I need to do something with this court claim form to halt the process, but what. I'd also rather not add another £123 to this.

    Thanks for reading

    hope you can advise (or give me a contact number that I can speak to someone at CEL/wherever)
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Oct 17, 11:24 AM
    • 33,473 Posts
    • 17,354 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:24 AM
    • #2
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:24 AM
    First your wife doesn't understand how ccjs work.


    Even if your daughter loses in court she won't have a ccj registered against her as long as she pays the CCJ in full within a month.


    Your problem is that now you have a claim in place to end it you need to pay the claim in full, simply paying part of the claim as you have done won't stop it proceeding


    Or fight the extras!
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 12th Oct 17, 11:26 AM
    • 1,212 Posts
    • 1,003 Thanks
    Comms69
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:26 AM
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:26 AM
    Why do people think they get a CCJ simply for losing in court? It's a ludicrous notion!
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 17, 11:28 AM
    • 16,865 Posts
    • 20,943 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:28 AM
    • #4
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:28 AM
    if you wish to fight it , just read post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread and a dozen other recent CEL court claim threads that are further along than yours

    the defendant should do the AOS on the MCOL website , nothing more , following the BARGEPOLE post on this matter from that NEWBIES thread

    then draft a CEL defence based on similar defences approved on here , adapted where necessary

    if this goes to court and is lost , pay up in full, promptly , to avoid any CCJ

    LEARN THE PROCESS TOO, DONT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS
    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
    • ro80rob
    • By ro80rob 12th Oct 17, 11:35 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    ro80rob
    • #5
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:35 AM
    • #5
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:35 AM
    I realise that It's just a matter of following procedure, and that, if it was found against her, a CCJ would only be put against her if process (and payment) was not forthcoming, but ultimately, my wife wasn't prepared to stand the chance of dropping the ball with this, and to be frank, you haven't met the wife.
    If I had this PCN, I'd have been right up there defending myself, but I don't have any houses to buy or loans to get.

    So..... looking at the hard copy forms I have, there is a section at the back marked 'Do you dispute the claim because you have already paid it'
    I guess I could fill that in, and write something in the defence box, but what?
    It's become a damage mitigation excercise now.

    Cheers... Rob.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 17, 11:37 AM
    • 16,865 Posts
    • 20,943 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:37 AM
    • #6
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:37 AM
    if you have paid it in full , then yes you can dispute it

    if it is not paid at all, then you have to contact the claimant and sort out a settlement

    we would rather it was fought , then if a judge finds against the keeper, pay it in court on the way out
    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
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Oct 17, 11:38 AM
    • 33,473 Posts
    • 17,354 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #7
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:38 AM
    • #7
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:38 AM
    So..... looking at the hard copy forms I have, there is a section at the back marked 'Do you dispute the claim because you have already paid it'
    I guess I could fill that in, and write something in the defence box, but what?
    It's become a damage mitigation excercise now.

    Cheers... Rob.
    Originally posted by ro80rob

    But you have only paid part of it (ie admitted to part of it being correct)


    See the wording on the back of the claim form she got from Court about admitting part of the claim
    Last edited by Quentin; 12-10-2017 at 1:38 PM.
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 12th Oct 17, 1:29 PM
    • 613 Posts
    • 1,123 Thanks
    safarmuk
    • #8
    • 12th Oct 17, 1:29 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Oct 17, 1:29 PM
    and to be frank, you haven't met the wife.
    Frankly I think it should have been your wife fighting this - CEL wouldn't have stood a chance.

    On a serious note - + 1 to all of the above.
    • The Slithy Tove
    • By The Slithy Tove 12th Oct 17, 7:41 PM
    • 3,214 Posts
    • 4,643 Thanks
    The Slithy Tove
    • #9
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:41 PM
    • #9
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:41 PM
    Why do people think they get a CCJ simply for losing in court? It's a ludicrous notion!
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Because most people are not familiar with the process. And the way the PPCs and their "friends" word their threatening letters, a naive reader would believe that a simple loss in court immediately means CCJ.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Oct 17, 7:53 PM
    • 33,473 Posts
    • 17,354 Thanks
    Quentin
    Why do people think they get a CCJ simply for losing in court? It's a ludicrous notion!
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Well.....That is correct.

    That is exactly how you do get s ccj! Every defendant who loses gets a CCJ against them

    What people who have never been involved probably think is that this then is on their record for years.

    This forum does spread the truth.

    1) you only get a ccj if you lose in court or ignore court claims.

    2) you can get one expunged from the register by paying it off in full within a month of getting it
    Last edited by Quentin; 12-10-2017 at 8:00 PM.
    • ro80rob
    • By ro80rob 18th Oct 17, 11:07 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    ro80rob
    CEL Draft Defence
    OK. Did the AOS on-line as instructed, and following help on here, have a draft defence that will have some familiarity with the experts on this forum.
    It's the opening statement that is unusual. Any comments/help etc?

    >>>>> Draft <<<<
    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: D333333333

    Between: Civil Enforcement Limited v ____________

    Defence Statement

    I am _______, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ________. I currently reside with my parents at ________________.

    The court should note that without my knowledge, authority or consent, using information from the Claim Form, a relative has paid the ‘Total due’ stated figure of £236.00 via Civil Enforcements Limited’s automated online payment system and a receipt (ID Number 5555555) obtained.

    Regardless of the above unauthorised action, I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

    1. The Claim Form issued on the Xth of Septober 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 (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.
    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. 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 does 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 and wording existing at the time of the alleged charge, as it is noted that the signage has been amended/replaced)
    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) Where interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed at the rate stated

    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 include that as well when neither the signs, nor the Notice To Keeper, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £359.05 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 neither 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 Code of Practice 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 Limited 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 Xth Septober 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
    <<<<<<<<<<<< Ends >>>>>>>>>>>

    Cheers.... Rob.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 19th Oct 17, 3:11 AM
    • 326 Posts
    • 322 Thanks
    claxtome
    Slight grammatical error in paragraph 1 "Soptober" and the same in paragraph 10 (a).

    What would help the regulars is explaining the circumstances that lead to a PCN being issued. Remember to phrase it with terms 'the driver' and 'the keeper'
    • ro80rob
    • By ro80rob 19th Oct 17, 9:50 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    ro80rob
    OK
    Sorry for the missing info.

    The 'driver' one evening used a pub car park that was normally free for 30 mins, after which a small charge (less than £3 to park all day) was engaged. The driver thought that after 6 PM, parking was free.

    Problem was, driver was 50 mins, not 30 and didn't pay the fee.

    Result, we are where we are and I'm under pressure (see earlier posts) to get this sorted.

    So, I have written a draft defence (prev. post) based on guidance here and I ask for comment.

    Also....
    Having re-read the bit in the Claim form marked under 'Particulars of claim', The claimant (I guess it is CEL who wrote it) state that they 'will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form'. What is that about, and what are they likely to send. The issue date of the form is 05/Oct/17, so I guess if they send anything it would be any time now.

    Do I wait till I see these 'particulars', or just get on and send in the defence? It just seems wrong in that if I hadn't done the AoS online, I'd have had to submit the defence already, without knowing the 'particulars', if they arrive.

    It also grates that a sub £3 debt can instantly turn into a £60 then £100 then £236 then £359. All of these figures are completely out of proportion and unreasonable. I'm an engineer, and we like to use factors of 10 for safety margins, or over rating of things, to try and make sure that they don't brake. None of the above figures come close to a factor of 10 above the £3.

    It also stinks that being ureasonable is not an argument that is acceptable. Where is the sense of fairness (sorry, rose tinted glasses moment).

    The whole place is going to hell in a hand cart.

    Come the revolution, I think there are definitely going to have to be at least some excesses!

    Cheers... Rob.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Oct 17, 10:19 PM
    • 51,635 Posts
    • 65,294 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Wait for the particulars.

    If you search the forum, or Google 'CEL particulars' you will see it's just a letter/enclosures.
    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.

    • ro80rob
    • By ro80rob 19th Oct 17, 11:05 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    ro80rob
    OK waiting for 'particulars'

    Back to my draft though. What about the opening statement. It is a fact of the matter, but perhaps a tad unusual. OK to go with it?

    Cheers... Rob.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Oct 17, 11:13 PM
    • 51,635 Posts
    • 65,294 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The court should note that without my knowledge, authority or consent, using information from the Claim Form, a relative has paid the ‘Total due’ stated figure of £236.00 via Civil Enforcement Limited’s automated online payment system and a receipt (ID Number 5555555) obtained.
    You could add this was unauthorised, has left the family budget with a loss and yet is no admission of liability for any part of this claim on your part. As such, you defend the claim in its entirety and ask that (should you successfully defend the matter at a hearing, or if CEL discontinue after wasting yours and the court's time, as they so often do, just before a hearing date) the Court orders a refund of that money which was paid in error by a third party, a person who was intimidated and misled by the Claimant's allegations of liability.
    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.

    • ro80rob
    • By ro80rob 20th Oct 17, 12:10 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    ro80rob
    Food for thought, thankyou.
    If this were me, well I wouldn't have paid.

    but...

    I'm back at the point with my wife's words ringing in my ears.

    At this time, CEL have been paid what they were asking for and much more than they deserve. They are now effectively chasing a much smaller amount (£123) to make the claim upto the full amount. It seems that even if my daughter loses, they are unlikely to be awarded more than £200.
    I am at this point wanting it not to go to court. To say that the court environment would be out of my, or rather her comfort zone, is more than true.

    Poking a stick at them since they have got some money might not be the best for my daughter to avoid court. 'As they so often do' fold is the same as saying that they do on occaision make it there, and the fact that they have some money really does mean they have something to lose.

    I think I will re-draft the opening statement to include some of your wording, which really does reinforce the position, but maybe tone down the latter part. I am sure that if it went to court, and she did win, it wouldn't be beyond the pale to ask for it back then.
    I realise that it's all supposed to be impartial, but surely judges must be getting fed up to the back teeth with all this money for nothing claim business, where there are an awful lot of 'no shows' on the day.

    Cheers... Rob.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Oct 17, 2:05 PM
    • 51,635 Posts
    • 65,294 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    'As they so often do' fold is the same as saying that they do on occaision make it there,
    OK let me spell it out - we have NEVER seen CEL continue to a hearing, when someone has used a defence from this forum. And we've seen well over a hundred CEL claims since 2016 (I've lost count but it's 3 figures).

    I was merely hedging my advice because I know from BMPA figures and from a Parking Prankster report, that CEL do on the very odd occasion rock up to a hearing. But IMHO that will be when someone has used a weak or template crap defence (not from here) and there was one case where the person got decent money from a counter-claim, which forces the case to a hearing if the victim pays the court fee, if the Claimant drops out:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5655023

    But you don't need a counter-claim, I wasn't suggesting that, and can see a hearing is not what you want.

    I reiterate, we've never seen a hearing as a result of a defended case here, from CEL. They ALWAYS discontinue, thus far. Also take heart and be aware that a case can be settled right up to the day of a hearing.

    I realise that it's all supposed to be impartial, but surely judges must be getting fed up to the back teeth with all this money for nothing claim business, where there are an awful lot of 'no shows' on the day.
    Manchester Court & Skipton Court are, so if either are your area, count yourself lucky. Don't balk at the idea of that hearing!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 20-10-2017 at 2:10 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.

    • ro80rob
    • By ro80rob 24th Oct 17, 6:50 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    ro80rob
    Help/instruction please

    OK, I am waiting for the 'particulars' letter which according to the text in the 'Particulars of Claim' section of the Claim form the claimant states they will....
    'provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form'.

    Now... The Issue date is 05/Oct/17. I believe that 5 days are assumed as the time to 'service' the claim. That means that I should have had something in the post by today (i.e. 14 days after 10th Oct). I have recieved nothing.

    What do I do now. I'm keen to get this defence sent in, but it references 'particulars' that I haven't had.
    Any idea what is going on and does this change my defence, or am I good to go with the draft shown in my earlier post?

    Cheers.... Rob.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 24th Oct 17, 7:05 PM
    • 15,841 Posts
    • 24,567 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Please read the other CEL threads on the first and second threads pages. There are a number of similar queries and responses from today. Johnersh has given some very sound advice using his lawyer background.

    You need to be all over the other current CEL cases as there’s lots to glean from them. And things move on apace.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
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

368Posts Today

1,850Users online

Martin's Twitter