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
    • Weirdbeard
    • By Weirdbeard 17th Oct 17, 7:33 PM
    • 11Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Weirdbeard
    County court claim form
    • #1
    • 17th Oct 17, 7:33 PM
    County court claim form 17th Oct 17 at 7:33 PM
    Hi all, I have today received a claim form from civil enforcement ltd.
    I admit I threw away the one and only charge notice/invoice that they initially sent. Foolish I know, however upon having been sent numerous (binning all as advised at that time) to a different charge notice for a previous period and no further action being taken, I thought what the heck and did the same.
    However it seems times have changed, after a quick look around it looks like they have upped their game.
    Am I too late to appeal this? The night in question was at a hotel (not a paying guest, nor an overnight stay) with no visible signs, well none to me and there were plenty of spaces, including a near empty overflow car park.
    Any ideas how I can get out of this?
    Can I offer to pay the initial £70?
    I know there are plenty of pointers with regards to PCN, but I can't find anything once you have received a claim from the county court.
    Any help much appreciated.
    Thanks in advance
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 17th Oct 17, 8:15 PM
    • 4,753 Posts
    • 3,094 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 17th Oct 17, 8:15 PM
    • #2
    • 17th Oct 17, 8:15 PM
    Now you have received a county court claim you should be reading the second post in the NEWBIES sticky thread.

    Pay particular attention to bargepole's thread linked to from there.
    It describes the step you now need to follow - starting with Acknowledgement of Service.

    No, they won't accept an offer of £70.

    This post by Redx applies equally to you.
    Last edited by KeithP; 17-10-2017 at 8:26 PM.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Oct 17, 9:36 PM
    • 51,754 Posts
    • 65,397 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 17th Oct 17, 9:36 PM
    • #3
    • 17th Oct 17, 9:36 PM
    after a quick look around it looks like they have upped their game.
    No they haven't.

    Any ideas how I can get out of this? I know there are plenty of pointers with regards to PCN, but I can't find anything once you have received a claim from the county court.
    You missed the second post of the NEWBIES READ THESE FAQS FIRST sticky thread?


    Can I offer to pay the initial £70?
    No, and why the heck would you do that when we win defences and we've never seen CEL go as far as a hearing against a forum defence here? They discontinue after winding you up into a tizz. Get out of tizz mode and play the game to win!
    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.

    • Weirdbeard
    • By Weirdbeard 18th Oct 17, 1:12 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Weirdbeard
    • #4
    • 18th Oct 17, 1:12 PM
    • #4
    • 18th Oct 17, 1:12 PM
    Thanks both, I'll be having a proper look through this evening. Had a nightmare last night, left the freezer door slightly ajar and all my food was semi defrosted , big cook up on the way
    • Redx
    • By Redx 18th Oct 17, 1:35 PM
    • 16,904 Posts
    • 21,016 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 18th Oct 17, 1:35 PM
    • #5
    • 18th Oct 17, 1:35 PM
    you fill in the AOS online on the CCBC website , not putting anything in the defence box

    read post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread, especially the BARGEPOLE walk through

    once the AOS is done , you have extended the deadline from 14 days to 28 days to submit the defence

    read about a dozen similar threads posted over the last 2 weeks, so you understand the process and advice

    it is unlikely that you will be using any of the paperwork you were sent as the defence will be emailed as a completed pdf once completed and sanctioned for submission
    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
    • Weirdbeard
    • By Weirdbeard 27th Oct 17, 9:18 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Weirdbeard
    • #6
    • 27th Oct 17, 9:18 AM
    • #6
    • 27th Oct 17, 9:18 AM
    Hi, so far I have completed the AOS only, once completed the page now shows 3 yellow boxes beneath 'view AOS'.
    Do I need to start defence straight away? I.e. any further questions to answered by myself prior to starting the full defence?
    Thanks in advance
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 27th Oct 17, 11:56 AM
    • 1,166 Posts
    • 1,197 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #7
    • 27th Oct 17, 11:56 AM
    • #7
    • 27th Oct 17, 11:56 AM
    No, you do not do anything other than acknowledge. Nothing.

    However, I bet it said more PoC were to be delivered within 14 days of the date of service of the claim form? Yes or No? If you say Yes, then what is the Service date?

    IF so you actually should NOT have acknowledged - until the PoC turned up, whcih Im guessing they havent?
    • Weirdbeard
    • By Weirdbeard 27th Oct 17, 5:34 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Weirdbeard
    • #8
    • 27th Oct 17, 5:34 PM
    • #8
    • 27th Oct 17, 5:34 PM
    No. I filled out the 5 page/points with my details and that was it.
    It didn't state an extension period, should it have?
    I can't actually see a due by date either!?
    Is this right?
    Thanks all
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Oct 17, 5:45 PM
    • 16,904 Posts
    • 21,016 Thanks
    Redx
    • #9
    • 27th Oct 17, 5:45 PM
    • #9
    • 27th Oct 17, 5:45 PM
    if you have done the AOS online , thats it for online for now

    look at your paperwork, it has a claim date and should say something about it starting maybe 5 days later

    then you have 28 days to complete and email the signed and dated defence

    so start drafting your defence in WORD or similar , ready for checking

    changes came in on 01 oct 2017 so it all depends on which version they used , but as you have already acknowledged I believe you need to crack on with your defence

    the legal explanations for all this were posted by johnnersh a few days ago (I bet you didnt read it)

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5722800&page=2

    post #38

    the paperwork either said that the details (POC) would follow within 14 days , OR it didnt say this at all (2 ways of doing it , new and old)
    Last edited by Redx; 27-10-2017 at 6:03 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Weirdbeard
    • By Weirdbeard 6th Nov 17, 9:01 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Weirdbeard
    hi all, worked away last week and returned to POC which in brief and some briefs of my proposed responses, i'll be sorting this out over the week and will update in due course, if any further advise, much appreciatted.
    1) car park is private property etc
    2) use of APNR - i think i've read something about double dip? is this not allowed?
    3) many clear and visible signs, signs constitute a contract etc - i disagree, i did not see one, it was dark, wet and cold
    4)sched of info - i'm convinced it's the wrong date, it states a friday, i'm sure it was a weds or thurs
    5) i apparantely accepted their terms, vine v waltham
    6) i breached terms - apparantely there is a touch screen within reception for permits, i did not enter reception, how was i meant to know this?
    7) justifiable statement, refers to parkingeye v beavis
    8) claimants reason for escalating to court - no tickets/invoices received to date
    9) claimants claim plus fees

    thanks all
    • Weirdbeard
    • By Weirdbeard 10th Nov 17, 1:20 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Weirdbeard
    i'm trying to put a copy of my draft up, but it isn't letting me, gulp

    hopefully editing will work!

    below is a copy of my draft, i'm planing on uploading over the weekend. any further advise much appreciated.
    should i only upload to the gov.uk site? or post hard copy too?
    also, should i put my address in with my name in the cel v myself part at the begining or is my claim number suffice?

    thanks all

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited
    V
    XXXXXXXXXXX




    Claim Number: XXXXXXXX




    I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
    The Claim Form issued on 10/10/2017 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”.

    This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). 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.


    There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

    This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

    The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

    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. These documents, and the ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
    ‘early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
    enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
    encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
    support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.’

    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.

    Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
    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
    A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
    Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

    Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

    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) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when it is believed that neither the signs, nor any NTK mentioned a possible additional £151.36 for outstanding debt and damages.

    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.
    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. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage 'contract', none of this applies in this material case.

    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.
    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.
    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.
    Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    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.
    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.
    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.
    The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car over 10 months 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:
    Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 9th October 2017.
    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.
    Last edited by Weirdbeard; 10-11-2017 at 1:35 PM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 10th Nov 17, 1:22 PM
    • 33,521 Posts
    • 17,405 Thanks
    Quentin
    Maybe too big


    Try splitting it over more posts
    • Weirdbeard
    • By Weirdbeard 10th Nov 17, 1:26 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Weirdbeard
    Maybe too big


    Try splitting it over more posts
    Originally posted by Quentin
    seems to have worked now, cheers though
    • 1505grandad
    • By 1505grandad 10th Nov 17, 1:28 PM
    • 52 Posts
    • 98 Thanks
    1505grandad
    I presume The Claim Form issued on 16/12/2017 is wrong?
    • Weirdbeard
    • By Weirdbeard 10th Nov 17, 1:34 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Weirdbeard
    I presume The Claim Form issued on 16/12/2017 is wrong?
    Originally posted by 1505grandad
    well spotted, cheers

    date edited to 10/10/2017
    Last edited by Weirdbeard; 10-11-2017 at 1:36 PM. Reason: date edited to 10/10/2017
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Nov 17, 1:39 PM
    • 4,753 Posts
    • 3,094 Thanks
    KeithP
    ...i'm planing on uploading over the weekend. any further advise much appreciated.
    should i only upload to the gov.uk site? or post hard copy too?
    Originally posted by Weirdbeard
    Surely you read in Bargepole's post that uploading to the MCOL website "destroys the formatting, and makes it hard for the Judge to read".

    It is suggested that you:
    1) print the defence statement
    2) Sign and date it
    3) scan it back in as a PDF
    4) send as an email attachment to the CCBC.
    .
    • Weirdbeard
    • By Weirdbeard 10th Nov 17, 1:51 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Weirdbeard
    Surely you read in Bargepole's post that uploading to the MCOL website "destroys the formatting, and makes it hard for the Judge to read".

    It is suggested that you:
    1) print the defence statement
    2) Sign and date it
    3) scan it back in as a PDF
    4) send as an email attachment to the CCBC.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    yes i have keith, i was just wondering if i should upload the pdf and post, or just upload, i will be doing points 1 - 3, as i have started the claim on the moneyclaim.gov.uk website, should it also be emailed? i can't see an email address on my claim form!?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Nov 17, 1:57 PM
    • 4,753 Posts
    • 3,094 Thanks
    KeithP
    i can't see an email address on my claim form!?
    Originally posted by Weirdbeard
    Google ccbc contact us
    .
    • Weirdbeard
    • By Weirdbeard 10th Nov 17, 3:33 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Weirdbeard
    i've found a couple of email addresses, i shall be emailing my claim to all as i have tried the website and it's useless, you're limited to a maximum of 120 lines.
    i've also tried calling the claims court and i was put on hold for 20 mins then cut off
    • Weirdbeard
    • By Weirdbeard 2nd Dec 17, 1:10 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Weirdbeard
    Hi all.
    I have today received a 'Notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track'.
    I'll be having a look through the forums on how to proceed, but as always any advice offered would be very welcomed.
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

3,478Posts Today

7,225Users online

Martin's Twitter