Popla appeal unsuccessful...Civil Enforcement

Coupon-mad

And what did she put in the defence box? Please say 'nothing'.

Why post recorded delivery? No advice here tells you to use the paper forms.

vicki1930

She's only sent the acknowledgement sheet itself stating that she intends to defend all of the claim and signed it...I think she sent it recorded to ensure they received it...is that going to be a problem?

nosferatu1001

Why dont they just logon and do the ack online? Then the form doesnt matter.

The_Deep

If they do take this to court they may struggle. Many judges would regard this as a trifling matter, and the Law does not concern itself with trifles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Besides they can easily check whether she parked there or not, the PPC know this, but ignore it because they want your money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

KeithP

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Why dont they just logon and do the ack online? Then the form doesnt matter.

That is the best option - do the AoS online now.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And what did she put in the defence box?

Can you please answer this?
Although it may not matter if the AoS is done online now.

vicki1930

Yes I've filed it online

Coupon-mad

Good, in her name? So at least that's done, to buy time to defend!

vicki1930

I would be grateful if you could cast an eye over the following for me please and let me know if I’m on the right track…thank you


In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number *****************
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v ***********
Defence Statement

I am *********** defendant in this matter and I deny liability to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

The Claim Form issued on the 1st October 2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

d) 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 - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
The particulars do not detail:
1. Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
2. Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged time.
3. How long or proof that the car was actually parked
4. The vehicle type and colour
5. Name and location of the car park
6. Why the charge arose

e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

3. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £361.28 for outstanding debt and damages.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

5. 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.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

(c) 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.
(d) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
(e) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!
(f) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(g) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

7. 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.

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 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.

9. 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.

10. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of 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 that a ticket had been purchased and displayed correctly (copy enclosed) but that a partial registration number may have been recorded, either by inadvertent error by the driver or by failure of Civil Enforcement’s own keypad or failure of the signage to make the full VRN a clear ‘obligation’ with risk of a penalty. No evidence has been produced either way by Civil Enforcement and it is not disputed by any party that there was certainly no attempt to avoid payment. Indeed Civil Enforcement will have an entry on their system on the day in question that charges were paid for a vehicle which was not present, and so could reasonably be said to be aware that the problem was likely to have been caused by an incorrect registration.

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

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.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

Coupon-mad

Defence Statement

Nope:

DEFENCE

(copy enclosed)

Nope, you do not enclose anything with the defence. Evidence comes later, as explained in the sticky thread.

That defence is waffly and doesn't state the facts or defence. We've moved on!

I would not look at an old CEL defence, instead go with bargepole's concise ones as your base, the ones in the NEWBIES thread 2nd post.

vicki1930

ok...thanks