Court defence for Civil Enforcement limited claim

daniel2308

Hi there, first of all apologies if any of this is incorrect this is my first time posting on a forum and I'm just looking for some advise as I have seen so many others helped by MSE.

I have recently received a County Court Business centre claim form for an un paid parking charge from Civil Enforcement Limited dating back to 07/01/16. In which I have no recollection of parking at this car park however other people had use of this car as well.

I have done some browsing of the very similar posts on MSE and have used the advice and draft defences on here to try and start a draft defence.

I believe the particulars of my claim are very generic and are the exact same to every other set I have seen on other posts, so I have used a very similar draft defence tweaked accordingly to my case.

Please would anyone be able to view my draft defence and guide me accordingly, apologies again if anything is incorrect as I am new to all of this.

Thanks Dan

Claim Number: XXXX

Civil Enforcement Ltd v XXXX

Statement of Defence

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

1/The Claim Form issued on the 02 December 2016 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “The Legal Team”.

2/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.

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

3/ 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 free. None of this applies in this material case.


4/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:

(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, no letters or correspondence has been received apart from the Claim notification itself and the Schedule of Information, which followed.

(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The initial County Court Business Centre 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.
4. The vehicle type and colour
5. Why the charge arose

(d) The claim is signed by 'Ashley Cohen'


5/ 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) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

(d) It is believed the 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).

(e) 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.

(f) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.


6/ POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

7/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(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).


8/ 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.


9/ 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.


10/ 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.


11/ 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.


12/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. 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 particulars of claim are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.


13/ If the court believes there was a contract, 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 02 December 2016

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.

Regards

Mr XXXX
EDIT:
I have already submitted for an extension for the defence to be submitted and I still have a few days left, I also haven't sent off for a part 18 request yet, is that something I should do?
Thanks again

Coupon-mad

Sorry you didn't get a reply, just rescuing and bumping your thread for comments.

You need to remove all mention of GPEOL as it has no legs in a defence argument:

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

daniel2308

Thank you so much for the help coupon mad I will do, is there anything else I should change in your opinion? I'm new to all of this.

daniel2308

Have now edited it with your advice! If anyone has any further advice in what to add or remove that would be greatly appreciated if not I will submit like this:
Claim Number: XXXX

Civil Enforcement Ltd v XXXX

Statement of Defence

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

1/The Claim Form issued on the 02 December 2016 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “The Legal Team”.

2/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.

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

3/ 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 free. None of this applies in this material case.


4/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:

(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, no letters or correspondence has been received apart from the Claim notification itself and the Schedule of Information, which followed.

(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The initial County Court Business Centre 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.
4. The vehicle type and colour
5. Why the charge arose

(d) The claim is signed by 'Ashley Cohen'


5/ 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) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

(d) It is believed the 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).

(e) 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.

(f) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.


6/ POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

7/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) The sum pursued exceeds £100.

(b) There is/was no compliant landowner contract.


8/ 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.


9/ 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.


10/ 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.


11/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty with no 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.


12/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. 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 particulars of claim 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 Claim Form issued on 02 December 2016

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.

Regards

Mr XXX

Coupon-mad

I would start with:

This claim appears to relate to an allegedly unpaid parking charge from Civil Enforcement Limited dating back to 07/01/16, almost a year ago. I have no recollection of parking at this car park, however other people had use of this car as well. On the balance of probabilities and to the best of my recollection, I am unlikely to have been the driver on that occasion and I put this Claimant to strict proof, because without that they have no case against me, since this Claimant chooses not to use the statute which would have given them a potential right to claim 'keeper liability'.


Remove (d) the claim is signed by 'Ashley Cohen' because it isn't (not the claim). Point #12 also talks about Mr Cohen.

Change 'Regards' at the end, to a statement of truth, e.g.:

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

#13 only applies if this was a Pay and Display car park. Was it? Do you know what the contravention is alleged to be?

I would not send a part 18 request because your defence asks for more detailed particulars and you don't actually want to give them a second chance to send full details. If they don't, it looks worse for them later.

daniel2308

Hi there thank you so much for all of your help and advice, I am editing it now and have removed the claim is signed by Mr Cohen and added what you kindly write for me at the start, should I still keep the point about Mr Cohen in 12/ and also in regards to 13/ needing to be removed as it was a free car park I cannot see a 13/.

Thanks again!

The_Deep

Have you read this?


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/cel-turn-up-to-court-50-cases-of.html


There are plenty more where this came from.

Coupon-mad

Ooops sorry! I was looking at #13 in your previous draft which was removed:

[STRIKE]13/ If the court believes there was a contract, 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.[/STRIKE]

daniel2308

No problem I've edited that all now and kept the part about Mr Cohen in section 12/. Do you think it's now acceptable to submit as my defence. Thanks

Coupon-mad

I think I'd change it to:

12/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal (or even admin) costs' were incurred.


(I would not deny them interest).

Did you put in a statement of truth?

e.g.:

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

daniel2308

Brilliant will change that, I have added a statement of truth to the end