County Court Claim Form From Civil Enforcement Ltd

wilkinl7

Thanks Coupon-mad, will make the changes and will post up shortly.

wilkinl7

So, we have made the changes suggested here it is. Do you think its ready to send?

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 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 form is signed by 'Michael Schwartz' who currently has a 5 year suspended suspension from practicing as a solicitor, and has conditions imposed on his practicing certificate which prevent him from working as a solicitor with SRA approval, and can only work in employment.



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) 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.

4. 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.


5. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis:

(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.

6. 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.

Coupon-mad

Better. My thoughts now are:

Is this true? Can he say 'I was not the driver?'

4. POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver -

Remove the bit crossed out here:

4. POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case [STRIKE]and the Vine cases[/STRIKE]:

And I think I would move the first 'Beavis distinguished' point down, so that the first thing the Judge reads is telling him/her about the lack of particulars.

Then before your friend starts to attempt to defend the claim in detail (i.e. before your current point #3) I think he should have an explanation of what the case seems to be about. He can say despite the lack of Particulars, he believes the claim might be about a time when...blah blah. Mentioning the lack of clear entrance signs and confusion over two car parks and the fact the driver did pay and display in good faith and made every reasonable effort to comply with the terms for that car park, as signed (badly).

The reason is, otherwise the Judge reads this with no clue as to what the driver actually did and only finds out at the bottom 'the fact a ticket was displayed on my vehicle...'. IMHO that comes too late to flow well, needs to be made clearer earlier.

wilkinl7

Thanks again for reading over this mate.

I have removed the point about identifying the driver completely, because my friend can't deny driving.

I have also included the background to the case before I start bullet points.

Here it is;

I am xx, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

On the 21/12/2014, I had been in Milton Keynes doing some shopping, and decided to visit the Hub to get some food with a friend. The closest car park is the site detailed on the Schedule of Information for this claim. I purchased a ticket from the ticket machine located on the corner of the entrance that I used to enter the car park. I drove to the end of the car park that was closest to the Hub, and parked the car displaying the purchased ticket.

I have photographic evidence that clearly shows lack of visible signage detailing the difference between two car parks at the site, and the difference in how payment is needed for the two sites. The photo provided by the Claimant in the original parking ticket also clearly shows a ticket on display in the window on the car. When provided with this evidence following the original appeal, the Claimant decided not to accept the appeal. I have strong reason to believe that people in similar situations have had their original parking ticket rescinded following an appeal.

As payment had already been made, I feel that the claim made by the Claimant does not represent a true calculation of loses.

The below summarises why this based on the events disclosed above,

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 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 form is signed by 'Michael Schwartz' who currently has a 5 year suspended suspension from practicing as a solicitor, and has conditions imposed on his practicing certificate which prevent him from working as a solicitor with SRA approval, and can only work in employment.

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) 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.

4. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis:

(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.

5. 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.


Look forward to hearing back, thanks

wilkinl7

Thanks for all the help on this Coupon-Mad. The letter had to be sent today, so we went with the above. Will let you know what happens next....

Coupon-mad

OK. We will see whether this proceeds.

Thanks again for reading over this mate.

No probs but I'm a lady!

Here's a summary from bargepole of what happens when, what the Defendant MUST do in time, re the paperwork & deadlines:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325

Do not think putting in the defence is your only job! Unless this is discontinued, once allocated to your local court, you will be given a clear date by which YOU MUST file the evidence ('exhibits') and any Witness Statement (i.e. yours, as bargepole says in the above link!).

As well as court transcripts, you will also need the Beavis case sign in your evidence. Your friend's case is now revolving almost entirely on signage so that's what needs to be evidenced. A good idea would be to get dashcam footage or a phone camera recording (held by a passenger) showing how confusing the car park is to drive into, then park up and show how close the other machine is/lack of definition or barriers to stop people making this mistake.

Even better would be if another driver in a different car rocks up and makes the same mistake while the person is filming...;)

wilkinl7

Hi Coupon-made

No probs but I'm a lady!

:embarasse Sorry, I type like I talk sometimes!

We have read the link you provided, thanks. I have it saved in favourites as we used it during writing the above.
How long is it for the court to send the Directions Questionnaire? And subsequently how long does court give the claimant to respond before it is deemed discontinued?

We will definitely go back and a reconstruction of what it is like to park in the car park and how confusing it is. I think we should be able to record someone making the same mistake I have certainly seen people make same mistake before.

Thanks again for all the help

Guys_Dad

The problem here is that, as stated, there are at least 2 different car parking regimes here. Google "Parking Map Milton Keynes."

It's not that the signage is poor - in fact to be honest it is pretty good. Also, from memory, all the machines can be paid by cash or phone. What happens is that people go to the wrong machines. If you park in a council area but pay a PPC, the council are pretty good about cancelling. Not so the other way, as you might guess.

So I assume, you parked in a Private area and paid a council machine?

My advice is, if you can, get the case heard in Milton Keynes as the judge should be familiar with the problem. You need to show in diagram where you parked, which machine you paid and where the nearest PPC machine is.

I fear you won't win on signage alone, you need to show that it was a reasonable assumption that the machine you used related to the parking area you parked in and that there is no warning on the signs or machines that would indicate you were using the wrong regime. I would also include the MK parking map in your submission. See here and download the pdf https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/streets-transport-and-parking/parking/parking-maps-for-central-milton-keynes

Suggest you print it in colour on A3 and anyone looking at it will be able to see the problem.