Please help with CEL County Court claim form

RLC2016

Hi,

I am in the process of reading through all the information on the forums regarding what to do in the event of County Court claims. However, I am beginning to become overwhelmed by the amount of information available and I'm struggling to make sense of it at the moment.

I will continue to read through and then draft my bullet points if someone wouldn't mind having a read through for me, it would be much appreciated.

The original invoice was sent to me in early 2015 for an alleged overstay at a free car park. I did email for advice but they never responded and a year later I received a letter for payment informing me that they will pass to their legal department if I don't pay.

I just have 1 question for now. I do not think I have received a 'letter before claim' letter. I remember receiving the letter earlier this year which informed me that if I did not pay then they would pass to the legal department but I have recently received County Court claim forms. Is this allowed in the legal world? The letter earlier this year gave date and venue and PCN reference but no further details of what the fine / invoice was for. It was also just 1 side of A4.

Thanks in advance

Redx

only a judge can decide if you should have received an LBC but I doubt it will be a big or meaningful feature in your defence

read post #1 of the NEWBIES sticky thread, court section for a start

acknowledge online saying you will defend and get a further 14 days, BUT DO NOT PUT ANYTHING AT ALL IN THE DEFENCE BOX, leave it alone, leave it blank, this is important

also read through the several other similar CEL cases on the go at the moment, they contain a wealth of information you can use and learn from , so anything dated 2016 , nothing prior

bookmark each CEL case so you can refer to it, as they are further along then you are

RLC2016

Thank you, that's really helpful.

Coupon-mad

Yep, search this forum for 'Schwartz' and you'll find a CEL defence which was written within the last few weeks. It's not an exact template but you can adapt that one because your case will be similar, they all are at the moment because CEL are churning them out. CEL are chancers who often never proceed/never turn up in the end because they are hoping for a default win or to frighten you into paying an inflated sum.

But as Redx says, acknowledge it first with nothing in the defence box, that means the 14 days is extended to 28 from the date of service of the court papers. Buys you enough time to work on the defence based on the 2016 version you will see here which mention Schwartz.

Lots of defence points to include and the ones you will find on other threads include the fact there was no LBCCC and probably no particulars of claim either (does it say 'particulars of claim to follow'?). You can also send a part 18 request which you will see discussed too; it's a letter to CEL/Schwartz, asking for full particulars and full details such as pictures of signage, a copy of the PCN, proof of landowner contract, etc.

Write the part 18 request as the registered keeper, write the defence that way too because CEL can't hold a keeper liable. Albeit maybe you alsoready said who was drivingin your appeal way back at the start? Hope not, you should be 'the keeper' and not divulge the driver...

If you are going to get a PPC small claim then CEL seems to be one where your chances of seeing this off in the end remain high, IMHO, and as I said they have history of not turning up (and history of phoning a defendant and pretending you don't have to turn up either). You do - but we'll cross that bridge later!

RLC2016

Thank you. I'm really struggling with what I need to write for my defense and I don't really know what a part 18 is or where I need to send it. I'm trying to look at previous posts but I don't understand the language.

Please can someone help me?

Coupon-mad

Yes, search the forum for Schwartz and one of the results from only last month has a defence. I'm not linking it, forum searches are how MSE works best for people. You only have to put one word in the 'search this forum' box then read the results from 2016.

I only wrote that defence on 19th February so it's not hard to find. You could even get to it by clicking my username and looking back in my posts.

RLC2016

Thank you, I found it. Sorry I've got myself together now, I think I'm in panic mode.

I think most of this applies but not sure on the landowner contract section. Please can you advise?

I haven't sent of a part 18 request form yet but I'll do that tomorrow. I'm guessing it's just a letter requesting further information of the claim.

I acknowledged the claim on the 8th March. Do I definitely have 28 days from then to get my defense in.

Claim Number: *******

Civil Enforcement Ltd v ******

Statement of Defence

I am xxxxxxx xxxxx , 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. – not sure this applies as I have received a letter prior to the court claim forms with Reg, PCN, date and location but no details of what had happened but this is on the original from over a year ago – an overstay
The original letter stated that I owed them £100. For some reason this has jumped to £140 with no explanation – sure this breaks some rule.

(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).
NOTE: The sign on entry to the car park is on the opposite side of the road (which I didn’t see) and there were no signs in front of where I parked.

(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 - I overstayed 21mins and 7 secs according to original invoice but they have not provided evidence of that.

(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. – Not sure about this.

(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 and the claim/draft claim are templates, so it is not credible 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 believed 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 with an easily quantifiable loss (the tariff) 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 4th March 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 14 March 2016 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.

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

RLC2016

I didn't appeal last year, I sent them an email asking for advise and they sent me a letter telling me my appeal had been rejected and said something about a problem with misuse of the car park which is why they had to uphold the 'fine'.

When I did email them however, I acknowledged that the car was there and that I was in the restaurant but did not confirm that I was the driver as there are several people who drive my car. Although I think from what I've read I've given them enough to make an assumption.

I have a bank statement to prove that I was in the restaurant and spent £20. There was a group of us and I was the party organiser so I arrived a bit earlier to make sure everything was set up and ready for us. I honestly did not know that there was a time restriction and did not notice any signs at the time. I was probably in the car park saying my goodbyes for 20 minutes.

Coupon-mad

I acknowledged the claim on the 8th March. Do I definitely have 28 days from then to get my defense in.

No, and it's a defence (not USA spelling defense...sorry to be pedantic but this is your defence). No-one said you had 28 days from the day you acknowledged the claim. You have 28 days from the date of service of the claim papers if they arrived within 5 days.

RLC2016

I have got until the 1st April then to submit my defence, Have I ran of time for a Part 18 request?

Redx

no , but you probably wont get a reply in time, but do it anyway , the holding defence can be tailored to mention that its been asked for and ask the court for leeway to adjust any future FULL defence once the details are known