Court defence for Civil Enforcement limited claim

daniel2308

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/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'.

2/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”.

3/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

4/ 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.


5/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


6/ 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.


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

8/ 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.


9/ 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.


10/ 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.


11/ 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.


12/ 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.


13/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


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.

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

Mr XXX

Here's the final draft with all your help added in Coupon Mad

Coupon-mad

Looks good to be submitted, save for just making this into one sentence:

3/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.

daniel2308

Edited that last bit and will submit tomorrow, can't thank you enough for all the help!

daniel2308

Just tried to submit on MCOL and it's rejecting my MCOL number, I can't get in touch with them as there not open over Christmas, anyone know if they have an email address which you can submit defences through?

DawnR1978

just wondered how you got on with your defence? was it successful?

Coupon-mad

daniel2308 wrote: »

Just tried to submit on MCOL and it's rejecting my MCOL number, I can't get in touch with them as there not open over Christmas, anyone know if they have an email address which you can submit defences through?

We assume you got the defence posted instead (which is the advice in the NEWBIES thread, not trying to fit a defence in on MCOL)? And that CEL haven't continued so the court has stayed the case as they have with all other CEL cases we see defended here?

007newbie

Ok long story short I have followed this thread and other and used the standard defence filed it and now been sent a Questions Directive form. Asking if I prefer to go to mediation or to court. Online when I login to MCOL it says the claimant has already filed there Questions Directive.
I am stuck what do I do now?

Umkomaas

I am stuck what do I do now?

Post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky will provide you with the steps you now need to take. Everything is included there in the context of a court claim, so use that now as your guide right through to the hearing stage (if it gets that far), so you will know what comes next, then you won't be surprised when it lands through your letterbox.

If you have any queries about your case (this is someone else's), please start a new thread of your own.

Coupon-mad

007newbie wrote: »

Ok long story short I have followed this thread and other and used the standard defence filed it and now been sent a Questions Directive form. Asking if I prefer to go to mediation or to court. Online when I login to MCOL it says the claimant has already filed there Questions Directive.
I am stuck what do I do now?

Not again. I am so bored with this question pointlessly asked on all CEL threads with no effort to read even a couple of other CEL defence threads first, I think I'll stop replying on them, leave to to others with more patience.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5696166

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5674424

Does no-one read the NEWBIES thread or maybe half a dozen other CEL cases before posting that they don't know what to do?