Claim form civil enforcement

salmosalaris

Tick that you wish to defend in full but don't enter any defence yet .
Await the detailed PoC then rebut each.

salmosalaris

Here is a defence submitted in another CEL case to give you an idea. Adapt to suit your circumstances because I bet the PoC will be similar


I am xxxx the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle xxxxx.


I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:

1. 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.
2. The driver had the authority of the landowner to park as they were working on site at the hotel. An e mail from the hotel confirms this to be the case and confirms they do not wish the charge to be enforced. The Claimant is bringing a claim simply for its own profit and motive and not the purpose for which they were ( but I believe are no longer) supposedly engaged
3. The Claimant has suffered no loss. The charge that the Claimant is attempting to impose is for damages for breach of the Claimant’s own terms and conditions , but it cannot escape being anything other than an unenforceable penalty because the Claimant has no significant interest in enforcing this charge when its justification is apparently one of deterring unauthorised parking. The driver was authorised to park but was not made aware that the Claimant wished a permit to be displayed. It is not a legitimate interest in imposing a charge for failure to display a permit ( any requirement to so was also not made obvious) when the vehicle was fully authorised by the landowner to park as it did . The charge is also clearly disproportionate to any purported legitimate interest and is clearly extravagant and unconscionable. The Claimant suggests that the driver agreed to pay a charge in return for parking without displaying a permit. This is denied. This suggestion in paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim is clearly an attempt to thinly disguise what is a claim for damages for a purported breach of contract as a contractually agreed sum allowing the driver to park outwith the terms and conditions. This is a nonsense as a contract must contain a genuine offer and it is impossible for the Claimant to make an offer of something that the contract forbids , in this case purportedly parking without a permit.There can be no such contract in this situation. This is further confirmed by paragraph 6 of the Particulars of Claim where it conversely refers to the driver having breached the terms of conditions.
4. The Claimant has no locus stand to bring such a claim. Any contract for parking is offered by a clearly disclosed Principal, the hotel. As agent the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.
5. The original demand was for £100 , the absolute maximum allowed in the British Parking Association code of practice. A contractual term that was displayed on signage requiring payment of £100 cannot be enforced for the revised sum of £85 simply to fall in line with the Supreme Court judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. No justification of the need to charge such an extravagant amount ,for simply inadvertently failing to display a permit when the vehicle was fully authorised to park, has been provided. This case is easily distinguishable from Parking Eye v Beavis and the judgment in that case is not applicable to the present case because there is no legitimate interest that saves this charge from being a clearly unlawful penalty.
6. I do not believe the Claimant has incurred further costs of £40 and put the Claimant to strict proof it has. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.
7. The term requiring payment is an unenforceable contract term with reference to The Consumer Rights Act 2015.
8. The signage on site was inadequate to constitute a contract , the terms of which could legally bind the driver. The signage was not clear and visible.
9. The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and cannot rely on its provisions to hold me liable as Registered Keeper.The Claimant will be fully aware of this and paperwork received prior to legal proceedings in which they claim the requirements of the Act have been satisfied and that I am liable as keeper are I believe potentially fraudulent.
10. Paragraph 7 of the Particulars of Claim refers to the British Parking Authority. There is no such body. I believe this is possibly a deliberate misrepresentation of the authority of the British Parking Association which is a mere trade association representing its members. These Particulars of Claim are signed by a solicitor who I believe has been involved with the Claimant for many years.

Alitbaw

Hi evrro,

Particulars arrived today but not from the court, from cel..does this impact on what I do next?

Poc are same as draft with an added schedule on the back with the details of the supposed over stay.. 20 minutes but no photos are provided showing the time of entry and departure.

Pre pofa so obviously no reference to driver, is it worth mentioning I'm not the registered keeper now and asking for more evidence of keeper then? I'm assuming that because they have my name from DVLA then that is sufficient, but no evidence is given in the poc to prove it!

No breakdown of costs either...

Thanks everyone

salmosalaris

I've sent you a pm

Coupon-mad

You can trust salmosalaris' advice by pm.

Alitbaw

Hi everyone, I posted separately about the outcome of this but will also just update this one following a nudge tonight and seeing someone else have a similar experience to me. Just to let everyone know I filed a defence thanks to salmosaris and no reply was ever filed by CEL. I contacted the court after the time to respond was up. They told me the claim was stayed and the only way it could be resurrected was by CEL applying to the court to get the stay lifted upon payment of a fee.

So upshot is ..take the advice of the great people here. Don't panic and pay without taking advice that that is the right thing to do, and make sure you folloiw the court rules to the letter...don't miss deadlines!

These people can be defeated!