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

Coupon-mad

I realise that's got pretty long now but thought I would plonk it here anyway for final discussion.

Can you email it? I thought not? Does MCOL let you show it as an attachment or does it say you can email it on the form?

If not then you would need to remove SOME details under SOME headings and keep them for your full defence. e.g. the BPA CoP breaches could be held back as long as you keep ALL the headings.

The details about the signage could be held back as long as you have the signage heading.

You could also lose the explanation under #4 'POFA' as long as you have the heading.

salmosalaris

You can e mail your defence to
ccbcdefendants@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Make sure your name and claim no are included

Coupon-mad

salmosalaris wrote: »

You can e mail your defence to
ccbcdefendants@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Make sure your name and claim no are included

Thanks salmosalaris, never knew it could be emailed. Presumably the OP's paperwork tells him that is a choice anyway?

salmosalaris

If e mailing , ring the court to check it's been received alrhough you usually get a confirmation e mail IIRC

N4D5

Managed to get it to 122 lines as follows: The claim number and details are already on the MCOL so I removed that.


I am ******** **, defendant in this matter and deny liability for
the entirety of the claim. 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 after exceeding a licence to park free. 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 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 - 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 incapable of binding the driver - 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 or legible; this is
an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the
UTCCRs (as applicable at the time).(e) 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. (f) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no
breach of contract.
4/ POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - 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. 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.
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 case. 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 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, 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.
10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original
parking charge. If Mr Schwartz is an employee then the Defendant
suggests he is remunerated so I do not believe that £50 legal
costs were incurred. Nor it is believed that a £40 fee was paid to
any debt recovery agency so the Claimant is put to strict proof it
has. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.
11/ In the Beavis case the £85 was deemed the 'quid pro quo' for
the licence granted to park free for two hours and there was no
quantified loss. Not so in this case where it is belived the
location is one with a small tariff after a grace period.
12/ If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied,
due to unlit signage) this is just the sort of 'simple financial
contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one where any sum
pursued for breach must still relate to a genuine pre-estimate of
loss.
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. 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. 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 such an
order, if not striking out this claim....***** *******

salmosalaris

Just submit it asap

N4D5

Thank you. You have successfully submitted your Defence form to the court.

Thanks Coupon-mad & salmosalaris for given me your quality time. Appreciate all the help and for baring with me tonight sorry to rush you guys.


Fingers crossed I get lucky now and they accept the defence. What can I expect a letter in the post either advising of judgement a court date for hearing or a striking of claim.


I shall probably also email a correctly formatted version too.

Coupon-mad

Let's hope they haven't pushed for a default already, but you've done all you can!

N4D5

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Let's hope they haven't pushed for a default already, but you've done all you can!

That means it just goes straight to judgement and I have 21 days to pay right.

Oh well I tried with all your support fingers crossed now.

N4D5

salmosalaris wrote: »

If e mailing , ring the court to check it's been received alrhough you usually get a confirmation e mail IIRC

Just emailed the defence in correct format.

Can confirm auto email confirmation received.


Thanks