Civil Enforcement Ltd - Draft court letter **Urgent HELP pls**

N4D5

I have started to put together a defence and have done below so far, After reading through many threads I realise I have missed the part 18 request due to me finding the N1 too late, so cant do that.

Thoughts please, do I put more info as per my previous letter to leave it short.


Claim Number: *******
Civil Enforcement Ltd v ******
Statement of Defence

• I have previously written to Civil Enforcement Ltd on more than a few occasions, I hold copies of all documentation and can present this with proof of postage.
• Letters were sent recorded and first class with full proof of postage. I have advised them I was never the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident and requested proof.
• This has never been acknowledged and no evidence has been provided to me.
• I requested that they send me a fully compliant ‘letter before County Court Claim’, so that I may deal with my own obligations under the Practice Direction, this was also never received.
• No contract nor offer by the parking company because the terms relating to parking as described are forbidding.

• No consent to pay the charge which is unclear from the inadequate signage.
• Surcharges and debt collection costs were not stated on the signage.
• POFA 2012 breaches - no keeper liability can apply and the driver from three years ago has not been evidenced.
• BPA CoP breaches: such as no grace period allowed, signs not compliant and the sum pursued exceeds £100.
• No standing of the Claimant.
• No GPEOL nor legitimate interest to allow such a disproportionate parking charge.

Should I mention reason for my late defence due to postal issue and N1 is the only doc I have received since writing to them and requesting further info.

Redx

I would remove this part as its not relevant since POFA2012

• I have advised them I was never the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident and requested proof.
• This has never been acknowledged and no evidence has been provided to me.

seems to be more stuff missing from the link I gave you , posts #7 and #12

I WOULD ALSO WAIT FOR ANY FURTHER CRITIQUE OR SUGGESTIONS including saying its different to the Beavis court case (the not a gpeol)

N4D5

Redx wrote: »

I would remove this part as its not relevant since POFA2012

seems to be more stuff missing from the link I gave you , posts #7 and #12

I WOULD ALSO WAIT FOR ANY FURTHER CRITIQUE OR SUGGESTIONS including saying its different to the Beavis court case (the not a gpeol)

Updated version, I hope its OK to submit. Really want to complete tonight.



Claim Number: *******
Civil Enforcement Ltd v ******
Statement of Defence

• I have previously written to Civil Enforcement Ltd on more than a few occasions, I hold copies of all documentation and can present this with proof of postage
• Letters were sent recorded and first class with full proof of postage.
• I requested that they send me a fully compliant ‘letter before County Court Claim’, so that I may deal with my own obligations under the Practice Direction, this was also never received.
  
• No contract nor offer by the parking company because the terms relating to parking as described are forbidding.
• No consent to pay the charge which is unclear from the inadequate signage.
• Surcharges and debt collection costs were not stated on the signage.
• POFA 2012 breaches - no keeper liability can apply and the driver from three years ago has not been evidenced.
• BPA CoP breaches: such as no grace period allowed, signs not compliant and the sum pursued exceeds £100.
• No standing of the Claimant.
• No GPEOL nor legitimate interest to allow such a disproportionate parking charge.
• 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 Claim Form issued on 20 January 2016
  (b) failed to provide Particulars of Claim within 14 days of the date of service of that Claim Form, thus making it impossible for the Defendant to prepare any form of defence; and
  (c) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated 09 December 2015 requesting further information and details of the claim
  
  
• In the circumstances, the Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim.

Coupon-mad

Who were you on the phone to earlier, surely not CEL who would say that wouldn't they?

Anyway, was the Claim signed by Michael Schwartz? Yes or no?

Was the allegation an overstay - how long? Any idea?

I'll try to assist with a re-write in the next hour.

Coupon-mad

Others might chip in to add/subtract some of the below and you need to tell us if this is Michael Schwartz (if not you need to remove the part about him).

I suggest the start you had was a little 'too much information' not relevant to a defence so I crossed the first bit out. Also I don't think CEL signs are usually forbidding, especially if this was a typical overstay in a free car park?

You should number each point of your defence and set it out in double-line spacing to make it easy to read (see how CEL set out their draft particulars like that, same sort of appearance applies to you now, make it easy on the eye):



Claim Number: *******

Civil Enforcement Ltd v ******

Statement of Defence

[STRIKE]I have previously written to Civil Enforcement Ltd on more than a few occasions, I hold copies of all documentation and can present this with proof of postage. Letters were sent recorded and first class with full proof of postage.[/STRIKE]


1/ 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. None of this applies in this material case.


2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:

(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information.

(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents only contain two pieces of individual information: the name of the defendant and the name of the car park. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number, but no date of event, no details, no VRN, no contravention nor photographs.

(c) The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - what the date of the parking event was, what the vehicle was, why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

(d) The claim is signed by 'Michael Schwartz' who is and was under investigation by the SRA and has practising certificate conditions currently imposed. It is believed he can act as a solicitor only in employment, the arrangements for which must be pre-approved by the SRA and I have no evidence that this is the case, nor that he is an employee of the Claimant.


3/ Inadequate signs - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.

(b) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) 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.

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

(d) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent, contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time).


4/ POFA 2012 breach - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver from three years ago has not been evidenced and a registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. In cases where a keeper is deemed liable, where compliant documentation was served, the sum pursued cannot exceed the original parking charge, only if adequately drawn to the attention of drivers on any signage.


5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) no grace period was allowed.

(b) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.

(c) the sum pursued exceeds £100.

(d) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

(e) the charge is not based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss (a condition at the time).


6/ 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 and are not the landowner.


7/ 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 claim. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.


8/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any 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 Claim Form issued on 20 January 2016
(b) failed to provide Particulars of Claim within 14 days of the date of service of that Claim Form, thus making it impossible for the Defendant to prepare any form of defence; and
(c) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated 09 December 2015 requesting further information and details of the claim

In the circumstances, the Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospects of success.

In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

salmosalaris

Can you post the particulars of claim , be they on the claim form or delivered seperately ? . It is they that need destroying

N4D5

Ys its Michael Schwartz who its been signed by.


As far as I can remember it was a late night pit stop fore fast food, no more then 10-15 mins I'm sure, the side entrance of takeaway was on the carpark in question, where driver had parked. The allegation was for no ticket purchase, I'm sure its normally priced at around 50p per hour.

Coupon-mad

As salmosalaris says, now you are back here, let's see the particulars on the claim form please (not from the draft).

If it was dark and a P&D car park we can add a bit more to a defence.

N4D5

Coupon-mad wrote: »

As salmosalaris says, now you are back here, let's see the particulars on the claim form please (not from the draft).

If it was dark and a P&D car park we can add a bit more to a defence.

Give me a couple of mins will take pics and edit and post

salmosalaris

Is it an MCOL claim ?
If so what is the issue date ?