County Court Claim Form From Civil Enforcement Ltd

wilkinl7

Hi Everyone

Back in December 2014 my friend and I went for some food after some Christmas shopping in Milton Keynes. We brought a paper ticket from a machine position at the entrance of the car park, then parked the car, displayed the ticket and went for our food.

Some months later my friend received a letter from Civil En trying to claim £100. They said we had parked without paying, however as explained above we had brought a ticket from the machine. Turns out there are 2 car parks next to each other; one you can buy a ticket, the other you have to pay by phone.

They wrote back couple months on, and said they wouldn't refund my friend as the debt was legit. We both thought as they said they would not refund him, they had it marked as being paid (not sure if anyone else has experienced this before?).

Then, there was nothing from them for sometime after this. That was until they passed the debt to ZZPS. At this point we stopped responding and ignored the letters based on posts/advice on hear and other similar forums.

Long story short, my friend has now received a court claim form from Civil Enforcement. He has registered online to defend his claim, leaving the defence box blank. He has about 9/10 days left.

He has now received a letter detailing the points of their claim. We are going to write a defence and hoped to get some feedback from some of you guys as you have a bit more knowledge than us?

Thanks in advance
L

Redx

so , read the NEWBIES sticky thread, post #1 , court sub-section

and gain some insights from this recent ongoing thread too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5483854

plenty of info on here from this year for you to go at

then post the initial defence on here for critique

Coupon-mad

We both thought as they said they would not refund him, they had it marked as being paid (not sure if anyone else has experienced this before?).

Is it the place that is half Council, half private? If so, then they are hardly going to mark it 'paid' if payment didn't come to CEL. But that's by the by...more important is the unclear signs then, at that site. Have you got photos you can get and show us? The Defendant will need them later if it goes to a hearing (most we see here don't, but preparation and evidence is all-important).

Read this one, here's a poster who has just managed to negotiate the steep learning curve and came out with a solid defence:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5483854

Lots of advice on that one, use it as if it was for you (because it is for all who need it).

wilkinl7

Thanks for the links guys, we are having a read through tonight and going to put a draft together.

I'm not sure if it is half council but they are claiming theirs is private property. Its Avebury Boulevard if that helps?
The defendant is going to have a look for old letters and photos so hopefully he will find them.

Thanks again, and will post draft soon, with any evidence we can put together.

Coupon-mad

Looks like Guys Dad - who posts here regularly - knows about this place:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5043384

Helpfully, he also took some photos you can use later as exhibits as they are from 2014; that is a stroke of luck. Look at that thread & photos.

Make sure the keeper drafts a defence based on others you find here recently, not writing the story of what happened.

wilkinl7

@Coupon_Mad - Thanks for posting the link to the pics, definitely the same place. We have also found pictures taken around Feb 15 after the initial CEL letter was received. We included these in our response.
As this is pretty much the same issue, and they cancelled him charge is there a way of including this in the defence?

I tried to uplaod the photo links we have, but it wont let me uplaod due to how new I am, on here. Now we have found them, do we print copies and have ready for court? Do we write in the defence photo evidence can be provided?

We are still in the processing of writing the defence based on ones on here. Should have it up later today/tomorrow.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Just change http to hxxp and bingo, you CAN post a broken link (we will convert it back).

You do not yet need evidence photos for court, that is months away - if a hearing happens at all. We have seen NO defended CEL cases end up at a hearing, after assisting with several on this forum. The Claimants did not proceed in the other cases we defended (we know sometimes they do pay the hearing fee in other cases - e.g. those the Parking Prankster Blogs about - but none so far in cases here).

wilkinl7

Thanks Coupon-mad, I read that on one of the other posts. Certainly reassuring.

Tried posting photos again, with hxxp but still kept saying I couldn't post them. Anyway, we also found an email including the photos again, and the appeal letter we sent after they issued the parking ticket. Here is what we said in the appeal. I recall we put this together with some info from various websites.

You issued me with a parking ticket on 15/01/15 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reasons, and wish to raise this as a formal appeal:

The car park in question has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Please see attached evidence that I have gathered as proof.

1. 1. Photo 1 is a picture of the entrance I used to the car park. Upon entering the car park I drove left to get a ticket from the machine.
   
2. 2. Photo 2 is the sign above the payment machine states “Pay by Phone” or “Pay here at Meter”. My friend then purchased a ticket, which you have already confirmed, over the phone, that I had a ticket on my dashboard (see Photo 4).
   
3. 3. Photo 3 the same white sign, which you can see above the payment machine, surrounds the entire car park.

You advised on the phone, that site is actually 2 car parks. However, in photo 3 there is no clear way of identifying the 2 car parks. If the car parks have different parking restrictions, the cars parks should be blocked off from one another, to prevent people from unknowingly breaching any restrictions applied.

According to the Unfair Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. In my case, the £100 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner Avebury Boulevard, Milton Keynes. For example, if the fee is £50 but parking costs £1-an- hour you’d need to have been there for 50 hours to justify the charge. I have already paid for a parking ticket, which as stated before can be seen in photo4, I feel the fine to unjustified.

If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.

We are trying to find the rest of the letters, but only need a couple more to have every thing. We cant seem to find a Letter before County Court Claim, and do not recall receiving one. So will include this in our defence too.

Coupon-mad

Looks like you have a handle on it and that earlier appeal helps you, because you showed them ages ago that the car park entrances are confusing and you proved it with photos. That will look very reasonable on your part as a consistent and honest witness in the end, IF you get your day in court.

wilkinl7

So here is the draft that has been put together using the various threads mentioned. I have amended and added some specific details to this case, but have also kept some(alot) of the original text, because to be honest much better than what I can write!

Claim Number: xx

Civil Enforcement Ltd v xx

Statement of Defence

I am xx, 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 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 (CoP) 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 for free. None of this applies in this material case.

2. This case can be distinguished from Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] 4 All ER 169 (the Vine case) which was dependant 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 (CoP) was paramount, and Ms Vine who entered into a contract to release her car from a car parking space which was limited to people who held licenses issued by the college. None of this applies in this material case.

3. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:

(a) I have not received a compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, no other correspondence has been received apart from the Claim notification and the Schedule of Information.

(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The initial County Court Claim Form only contains the claimants name, address and amounts of money identified as debt and damages, with a notice that detailed particulars will be provided within 14 days.

(c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information:
1. The defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
2. The VRN.
3. The date and time of the alleged incident.
4. Car park name.
5. Outstanding amount and break down of costs.

It does 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, only the arrival and departure time of the large car park totalling 14 minutes and 24 seconds.
4. The vehicle type and colour
5. Acknowledgement of a parking ticket
6. Why the charge arose


(d) The claim is signed by 'Mr 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.


6. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis and the Vines cases:

(a) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.

(b) Lack of visible signage at the site entrance clearly detailing the charge and how to pay for the license to park. There are also no clear signs showing the different car parks and their spaces - 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) 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.

7. POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis and the Vine cases:

No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver 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.


8. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis and the Vine cases:

(a) No grace period was allowed.

(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.

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


9. 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 £50.00 legal costs were incurred. Nor it is believed that a fee was paid to any debt recovery agency so the Claimant is expected to evidence this fact. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.


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 14 October 2016
(b) Is in breach of BPA Code of Practice
(c) Has not recognised the fact a ticket was displayed on my vehicle

The vague Particulars of the 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.

In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

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

Looking forward to hearing feedback.

Thanks
L

Coupon-mad

2. This case can be distinguished from Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] 4 All ER 169 (the Vine case) which was dependant 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 (CoP) was paramount, and Ms Vine who entered into a contract to release her car from a car parking space which was limited to people who held licenses issued by the college. None of this applies in this material case.

I'm not sure who wrote that but I'd get rid because it isn't right, sounds like someone has muddled up Beavis and Vine!

Vine was not decided on an undenied contract, in fact quite the opposite - Miss Vine won her Appeal court case because she was held NOT to have seen the signs as she was ill and they were obscured/unclear and not 'bound to have been seen'. The Vine case actually supports your position, albeit it's not a silver bullet, but you need to know what it was really about and why in fact it supports your defence.

And re this:

6. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis and the Vines cases:

- it should not be #6 as it seems to follow #3. Check your paragraph numbering!

- remove the reference to distinguishing your case from Vine (also remove it from #7).



Remove this because the Beavis case killed any argument about 'excessive charge' or 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'

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

You need to add the recent stuff about Mr Schwartz having a current restriction on working as a solicitor...search the forum for 'Schwartz' and you should find that covered in a recent defence in the past month or so (very recently).