Claim Form from CEL

Scholars86

Hi all, hoping to get some advice following on from receiving a claim form & particulars of claim in the post from Civil Enforcement Limited this week who are chasing £327 from me.

I received a PCN back in January 2016 where an ANPR was in use for the car park which clocked my car's time of arrival and departure.

Family members regularly drink in this pub, so I spoke to the landlord who assured me that nothing would happen and to ignore any future correspondence I received.

I ignored 3 or 4 more letters and then heard nothing for a few months, until I received the particulars of claim earlier in the week which informed me that the claim had now been issued at the County Court Business Centre.

The claim form then followed so after doing some reading on here (amazing forum by the way!) I have this morning filled out the acknowledgment of service online and left the defense blank.

After speaking to the landlord again this week, he has assured me that they have not pursued any claims through CEL for the last 2 years and that I shouldn't worry. Is my best option to urge the landlord to contact CEL directly and ensure that they drop the claim while I have this 28 days breathing space to prepare a defence?

Any other suggestions would be much appreciated and if there's any more info I can provide, please let me know.

Thanks!

Quentin

Now you have a court claim, then CEL have paid out for this to be issued, and the landlord obviously misunderstands how CEL deal with non payers of their charges.


It isn't the landlord who pursues the debtor - it's the ppc.


So keep on at the landlord to get this cancelled in tandem with using your 28 days to prepare your defence. If you don't get confirmation from CEL that the case is cancelled within the 28 days then submit your defence.

The newbies faq thread has advice as well as links to other sources of advice on court claims


(Edit your OP to remove details of who was driving!)

Scholars86

Thanks for the quick reply.
I'm due to take the papers to the landlord over the next day or so, so he has a better idea of what the situation is.
I've checked out the newbie thread over the past couple of days, but am still confused as how to prepare my defense if I'm honest.

beamerguy

Scholars86 wrote: »

Thanks for the quick reply.
I'm due to take the papers to the landlord over the next day or so, so he has a better idea of what the situation is.
I've checked out the newbie thread over the past couple of days, but am still confused as how to prepare my defense if I'm honest.

Cleary the landlord fails to understand that using a scammer like CEL, he stands to lose business and could end up as another pub closure statistic.
Do these premises have planning permission for the ANPR and signage from the council ..... you need to find that out.
Is the CEL contract with the landlord, if so he can tell CEL what to do.

£327 for a pint of beer is somewhat extreme.
Maybe a little word in his shell like ear that if he does not get it cancelled, you will let the local press know what is going on, that would harm his business which he does not want.
So Mr Landlord, a quick instruction to CEL will save you a lot of heartache

Don't be fobbed of that now it is at the court stage, CEL can stop this right up to the day of the hearing

Read all about the scammer here.....
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=cel

Might be worth showing the landlord this so he is aware of CEL

Do let the landlord know what CEL did to the Co-op staff, they are a highly vindictive set up and anyone employing CEL does so at their own peril

Scholars86

Is it worth my while sending off a Part 18 to CEL while I start preparing my defence?

pappa_golf

no , go and give the landlord a lot of grief , any bull from CEL that they cannot stop is BULL they can pull out , right upto the court steps

expect a letter from CEL wanting £50 "admin" fee for cancelling , this again is bull

Scholars86

First draft of defence below after spending hours reading on here today! Any comments/suggestions welcome.
Should I add somewhere that the N1 Claim Form was signed off by "Legal Team" and not an actual person? I'm also assuming in my draft that CEL will not respond to my Part 18 Request whcih I'm due to send tomorrow.

I am ****l 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:

1/ 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.

2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
(c) 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.

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) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time).
(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.
(e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

4/ BPA CoP 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).

5/ 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.

6/ 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.

7/ 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.

8/ 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.

9/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr Cohen 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.

10/ If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to unlit 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.
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 2nd December 2016
(b) (c) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated 09 December 2016 requesting further information and details of the claim

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 believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Marktheshark

Here is a plan.
Sort a defence and also

Find out who owns the land the pub resides on.

Ask the landlord to write you a letter on headed paper confirming you were a genuine customer of the premises.

Then go for the actual owner of the car park and make it clear this is of interest to the daily mail who will be running the story if you agree.

Scholars86

Went to see the landlord who confirmed they ended their contract with CEL around 9 months ago due to the way they operate.
He's going to email me to confirm they are not pursuing the claim.

beamerguy

Scholars86 wrote: »

Went to see the landlord who confirmed they ended their contract with CEL around 9 months ago due to the way they operate.
He's going to email me to confirm they are not pursuing the claim.

OK, but the track record of CEL suggests they will ignore him as they did with the co-op.

There are only two outcomes here, either the landlord sends you a confirmation in writing that this rubbish is cancelled or ....
He joins you in court to explain why he kicked out CEL

There is of course a third option and that is for the landlord to pay the full amount

A lesson for any company thinking about car park management.

Are they a known scammer ?
Do they want their customers to be scammed

CEL are a seriously bad company who will damage their business

Coupon-mad

Scholars86 wrote: »

Went to see the landlord who confirmed they ended their contract with CEL around 9 months ago due to the way they operate.
He's going to email me to confirm they are not pursuing the claim.

That will be evidence for your case but doesn't mean CEL are not pursuing this because they are (so far). We've seen off loads of these revenge claims this year with defences. Take heart that NONE have proceeded to court, but not because CEL don't do so, only because they were robustly defended and CEL discontinued or didn't pay a hearing fee so they were 'stayed' by the Courts.

We've got examples from as far back as February - none proceeded.

Remove your name from the post above (obviously it will be stated in your defence and also will need to state your postal address too - but NOT here!).

There is no need to rush this defence, you now have all month because you say you have acknowledged it.

So, let's get this right. As a start, remove ALL references to:

genuine pre-estimate of loss

as it has no legs in a defence now, after the Beavis case.

Yes you can assume the signage was in small print with no clear terms nor warning about how the ANPR data would be used.

Yes you can assume that the CEL PCN was not a POFA one, so they can't hold a keeper liable under that law. CEL never can, never did use POFA wording. But I couldn't see anything in your defence stating this, and you need it:

I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.

You have also copied too much from an older defence, as you said:

If Mr Cohen is an employee

...but surely this claim isn't signed by Mr Cohen? Is it signed by Mr Schwartz?

Or is it not carrying any name bottom left, just the 'Legal Team'? If so then the claim is not properly filed and that goes near the top of the defence.

If it's signed by Schwartz then search this forum for 'CEL Schwartz defence' to add the stuff about him being restricted from practising. It's in lots of defences but only where he is the one named on the form, so which do you have?