Northampton County Court Claim Form - Parking Fine Civil Enforcement Ltd

Tubbs_1

Yes, I have used examples form the forum and suited it for my circumstances. I forgot to remove point 8.

The_Deep

All this discussion is overcomplicated it for this poster though. (CM)

Indeed. all you need to do is make the right noises and CEL will wimp out. They have plenty of form

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/civil-enforcement-limited-discontinue.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/update-on-michael-schwartz-now-of-civil.html?

and much more. Do not be intimidated by their empty threads.

Redx

no use asking people to read a great wall of text with no formatting , try numbering it properly and using paragraphs

like this

and this

and this

etc

etc

see ???????????

Umkomaas

Wall of text - most regulars skip over if the OP can't be bothered to format into an easily readable post.

Tubbs_1

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:

• 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.
 The driver had the authority of the landowner to park as they were shopping on site at the retail park. 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.
• 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 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 after 3 hours. This is denied. This suggestion 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 for more than 3 hours. 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.

• The Claimant has no locus stand to bring such a claim. Any contract for parking is offered by a clearly disclosed Principal, the retail park. 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.
 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.
• I do not believe the Claimant has incurred further costs of £75 and put the Claimant to strict proof it has. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

• The term requiring payment is an unenforceable contract term with reference to The Consumer Rights Act 2015.
• 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.

• 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.
 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.

Redx

needs a statement of truth at the end for starters

Tubbs_1

Ok, there is a checkbox online when you submit the defence but I could add one. Anything else?

Coupon-mad

I would have some of the stuff about Schwartz being investigated and having his licence restricted by the SRA. That's in some other CEL defences we did in February, easy to find by searching this board for 'Schwartz' and looking for Feb/March posts.

And I would not have 'The Claimant has suffered no loss'. That makes it easy for them to respond using the Beavis case.

Tubbs_1

Hi all

Defence submitted and acknowledgements received from the court. Is there a time limit on CEL to respond before the claim expires?

nossa_2

Hi there - am reading this thread with interest but you do not say what the court result was. Please let us know what happened.