Creative Parking Solutions / Civil Enforcement / Wright Hassall

Redfred2378

Just opened my post and have received another letter from Wright Hassall entitled "Formal Letter of Claim"
I now have 14 days to pay up, before they issue County Court Prceedings.

Is it worth me calling them at all?

Half_way

No you should not pay up, however merely e-mailing the landowner inst enough.
you need to wirte, and possibly back this all up by visiting in person if possible.

Redfred2378

Hi, I've now received a Claim Form N1SDT from the County Court Business Centre. I have had no other communication from any of the previously mentioned parties since my last post. Claim is now for over £300. I didn't have any money before to pay out for a fine I didn't agree with so certainly don't have the money for this.

As I understand it from 5 days after the service date I have two weeks to return the Aknowledgement form form N9SDT, then have to file a defence form N9B (SDT) within 28 days of the service date.

If anyone has any advice to offer based on the information in the opening post regarding formulating a defence then it would be greatly appreciated.

Toriden

I have also received the same letter today. Looks like Civil Enforcement LTD were busy last week filing claims with MCOL. I have ignored every piece of correspondence from these scammers. Won't be able to ignore this though. Mine was for overstaying in a free car park at a retail park last May where I had lunch and went shopping! Advice welcomed as well!

Coupon-mad

It will help us to know, what wasn't answered when you read the thread 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST'? That's why it is near the top and attempts to cover the basics of challenges and/or defences, to stop too many 'what do I do?' and 'how do I defend?' threads we simply can't keep up with, despite concerted efforts here by regulars.

Please clarify what help you need after reading the NEWBIES sticky thread post #2, which is all about defending a claim?

I have also received the same letter today. Looks like Civil Enforcement LTD were busy last week filing claims with MCOL. I have ignored every piece of correspondence from these scammers. Won't be able to ignore this though. Mine was for overstaying in a free car park at a retail park last May where I had lunch and went shopping! Advice welcomed as well!

Read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, it's what it's there for, at/near the top of this very forum.

Read other CEL defences, which always always (thus far, on here) result in a discontinuance. There are loads on here, search for them (keywords 'CEL Legal Team defence') before starting a new thread as it's almost not needed re CEL. So simple to defend, compared to other ones, because you can copy what others did.

No reply here, not being funny, it's not your thread and to make sure no errors are made in advice given, we have to have a 'one case one thread' rule (after people have read the sticky thread advice first and read other defences v the same PPC).

Redfred2378

After reading as much info from the newbies and associated CEL threads till my eyes were bleeding.

Here is my draft defence outline. Any comments or pointers welcome. Thanks.

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

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

The Claim Form issued on the 07.04.2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person or by any person representing “Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

1/ 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. Key terms of signage at the site are not included in the summary of information and no evidence of signage details are offered or explained.
(d) A ‘Schedule of Information’ sent by the Claimant on 30.08.2016 with the “Letter Before Action” does not give sufficient details of the alleged parking infringement nor does it provide evidence of any contract that has been entered into or breached. It has still not been made clear to the Defendant why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; and cannot be considered a fair exchange of information.
(e) letters sent by the defendant to gain further knowledge of the issue have been ignored thus preventing the defendant the opportunity to avoid escalating the claim and avoid
Court proceedings. Pre Action Conduct outlines that letters should be responded to within 14 days.
(f) by failing to answer letters the claimant has removed the defendants right to use an Ombudsman (POPLA) to consider the claim and resolve the issue prior to court proceedings.

2/ The claimant has not 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.

3/ There can be no 'presumption' by the claimant that the keeper was the driver. Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained; there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

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. Neither the signs, nor the Notice to Keeper, mentioned a possible £327.35 for outstanding debt and damages.

4/ 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.

5/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of 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.
(b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(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 Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(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.

5/ 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.

6/ 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.

7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
The Claimant has no legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

8/ 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.

9/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirms that the penalty rule is still 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.

10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If the ‘Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)’ is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated 30.08.2016 are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. 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 incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 30.08.2016.
(b) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated 05.09.2016, requesting further information and details of the claim.
(c) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated 20.09.2016, requesting further information and details of the claim. Letter sent recorded, signed fordelivery.
(d) failed to respond to an email from the Defendant dated 24.11.2016 to ZZPS acting on behalf of Civil Enforcement, requesting further information and details of the claim until after they had passed the claim to solicitors Wright Hassall.
(e) wording of the “Schedule of information” has been amended from the initial Letter Before Action (30.08.16) and the Particulars of Claim letter (07.04.16). It my opinion that the claimant has either updated the signage since the date of the parking claim in an attempt to validate their claim or was deliberately withholding information on the original letter in an attempt to cause confusion and create an opportunity to increase charges by ignoring letters for clarification.
(e) by ignoring letters sent claimant failed to provide an opportunity to gain a POPLA code so that the matter could be referred for their decision (in accordance with BPA AOS Code of Practice 22.12).

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 the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

MrsKeegy

Hi Redfred2378

Have you had any comeback since your last letter in May? I'm in a similar situation, just wondering if to pay the £140 now before it escalates any further.

Just interested to know if they have carried on to pursue you after this?

pogofish

MrsKeegy wrote: »

Hi Redfred2378

Have you had any comeback since your last letter in May? I'm in a similar situation, just wondering if to pay the £140 now before it escalates any further.

Just interested to know if they have carried on to pursue you after this?

You have already been advised what to do after your other post, so hijacking another thread won't help you any - and you clearly agreed not to do it as part of your signup!

MrsKeegy

pogofish wrote: »

You have already been advised what to do after your other post, so hijacking another thread won't help you any - and you clearly agreed not to do it as part of your signup!

Pogofish, I am asking a genuine question about Redfred2378's case and if he got a response.

Yes, I made a reference to my own situation but I am not asking for advice, I'm purely curious to know if HE has had any comeback on HIS case.

nosferatu1001

If you click on their name, same as any forum, you can see the last time they visited. that will give you an idea how likely you are to get a response.