Please help with CEL County Court claim form

Crabman

Threads have been merged

Riffster

Apologies if I've put this in the wrong place but I've been reading so much about this I'm a bit boggled.

I've got a similar case going on and I'm about to place the following response on MCOL, I was just hoping somebody could cast an eye on it and give me their opinion on it - have I missed any salient points?

Should I make the point that they have failed to identify the driver of the vehicle?

TIA


I, XXXXXXX, as the Defendant deny any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons:

1. There were inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case. Following a recent visit to the car park in question I can confirm the following;

(a) Non-existent Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) 'data use' signage on entrance to the car park - breach of Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rules and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.!

(b) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.

(c) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer neither known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

3. The Claimant has failed to comply with the pre-action protocol because:

(a) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'.

(b) Photographic evidence was not provided as proof of the overstay.

(c) The claim form is signed by 'Michael Schwartz' who I believe underwent a thorough investigation by the SRA and consequently conditions were imposed on his practicing certificate and he was fined in the sum of £1,000.00 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). It is believed he can act as a solicitor only in employment matters, the arrangements for which must be pre-approved by the SRA and I have no evidence that this is the case, or that he is an employee of the Claimant.

(d) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied 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 was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

5. BPA Code of Practice breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

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

(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.

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

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

7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!

It is believed Civil Enforcement Limited 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.

i) The claimant has not provided any information in response to the Part 18 to suggest that they have an interest in this land i.e. a contract with the land owner of the car park.

8. 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 could be 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.

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 claimed an arrival time of the vehicle as 15:25:11, and a departure of 15:37:40, a total of 12 minutes and 29 seconds. This time is, according to their Particulars of Claim, measured by ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit of the car park. Therefore the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the vehicle actually parked, or that any “grace period” was in fact exceeded. This cannot therefore be considered a reasonable claim and is in fact vexatious. No evidence to support their claim has been provided.

11. 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. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

12. If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to inappropriate 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.

I as the defendant deny any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter.

I as the defendant invite the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

Coupon-mad

Riffster wrote: »

Apologies if I've put this in the wrong place but I've been reading so much about this I'm a bit boggled.

I've got a similar case going on and I'm about to place the following response on MCOL, I was just hoping somebody could cast an eye on it and give me their opinion on it - have I missed any salient points?

Should I make the point that they have failed to identify the driver of the vehicle?

TIA


I, XXXXXXX, as the Defendant deny any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons:

1. There were inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case. Following a recent visit to the car park in question I can confirm the following;

(a) Non-existent Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) 'data use' signage on entrance to the car park - breach of Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rules and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.!

(b) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.

(c) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer neither known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

3. The Claimant has failed to comply with the pre-action protocol because:

(a) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'.

(b) Photographic evidence was not provided as proof of the overstay.

(c) The claim form is signed by 'Michael Schwartz' who I believe underwent a thorough investigation by the SRA and consequently conditions were imposed on his practicing certificate and he was fined in the sum of £1,000.00 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). It is believed he can act as a solicitor only in employment matters, the arrangements for which must be pre-approved by the SRA and I have no evidence that this is the case, or that he is an employee of the Claimant.

(d) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied 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 was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

5. BPA Code of Practice breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

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

(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.

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

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

7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!

It is believed Civil Enforcement Limited 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.

i) The claimant has not provided any information in response to the Part 18 to suggest that they have an interest in this land i.e. a contract with the land owner of the car park.

8. 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 could be 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.

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 claimed an arrival time of the vehicle as 15:25:11, and a departure of 15:37:40, a total of 12 minutes and 29 seconds. This time is, according to their Particulars of Claim, measured by ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit of the car park. Therefore the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the vehicle actually parked, or that any “grace period” was in fact exceeded. This cannot therefore be considered a reasonable claim and is in fact vexatious. No evidence to support their claim has been provided.

11. 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. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

12. If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to inappropriate 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.

I as the defendant deny any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter.

I as the defendant invite the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

Sorry no-one replied!

You need to start your own thread urgently!