Civil Enforcement Ltd County Court Business Centre - Help needed please

UA1991

Redx wrote: »

do not let your hotel complaint cause you to lose sight of defending this

the hotal complaint is in parallel as you are hoping that the hotel will back you up , thereby meaning the landowner is on your side and that the PPC may have no locus standii in taking it to court

your defence is paramount here , the rest is icing on your cake if they back you up

OK so I will acknowledge the claim and the compile a defence. Is the defence something I can post here openly? Or should it remain hidden

UA1991

Right, I have sent the AOS and am now looking through this forum and Pepipoo for appropriate defence formats

Coupon-mad

Yes you can show your draft defence openly and we will comment.

Don't read old ones from more than six months ago (nothing about 'no loss').

UA1991

Hi everyone. Apologies for not having been more active on this, work has sent me into overdrive recently.

I have a few days left before needing to have filed the defence (Wednesday 15th) and after researching as much as I could I have compiled the following defence. Would I be able to get any tips and pointers if possible? Thanks in advance for all your help.

---

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

I am ******* the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle *****. I currently reside at ***.

The Claim Form issued on the **** 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”.

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/ 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.
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.”

4/ 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:


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 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.

10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge.

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 1st December 2016
(b) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** 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 the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Signed
Date

Coupon-mad

That's great and covers all the bases - we've never seen a MSE Forum defended CEL case proceed to a hearing.

UA1991

Thank you! I will post on Monday and post any updates.

Coupon-mad

OK good.

You can also email the PDF signed/dated scan of that defence to the court with the Claim Number and 'defence' in the subject line:

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

That way you know it's received by the court, by email and post.

UA1991

Perfect, will do

UA1991

Just a quick update, I have received a letter form the court letting me know that the defence has been sent to CEL and they will keep me updated on what happens next. Thanks again for everyone's help, I will be sure to post outcome and next steps.

Danielleed29

Hi, new to the thread but I have read up on the civil parking enforcement threads and also on the newbies page for the parking fines.

I am in the same position as most people on here however I had no idea about my fine until I accessed my monthly credit report which informed me that I have a court judgement (CJ) on my file. I have never been in any type of debt in my life so wasn't sure what this was. I had recieved no correspondence regarding this no emails letters no yellow obviously parking ticket stuck on my car window screen. I telephoned the county court business centre who I have managed to get hold of ONCE via telephone after 100s of attempts, they could only tell me it was a civil enforcement parking ltd for the value for £345 since July 2017. And they gave me a phone number they advised if I had no luck with the parking company to call them back. I rang the parking company as advised and it was an automated service asking me to input my 10 digit parking reference number - I didn't have one as I haven't recieved any documentation or letters regarding this fine. So I couldn't proceed on the phone call to speak to an actual human being, I rang back the county court to arrange to get a dispute form and since I have not been able to get in touch via telephone or email.
My court judgement is linked to my previous home address so I was luckily able to gain access to the house and discovered several letters with final warning charges and also a socilitors letter and then the court papers. As I have not lived in this property for 8 months I didn't receive any of these letters - If I did I would have settled the fine at the first instance and the lowest rate.
I was advised by the county court I needed to pay the full amount of £345 in 2 days and if I didn't it would stay in my credit file for 6 years.

I finally managed to contact the automated parking service with the 10 digit code I found on the letters and it gave me the option to pay 12 monthly instalments or pay the balance in full, Iopted to lay the monthly instalments and this has since come out of my bank - my question is does this mean because I paid before the 28 days was up,,, will this clear the CJ from my file? As I have had no conformation of this?

I have written a letter detailing all my evidence of not receiving sny correspondence to both the court and the parking company but I am yet to hear a reply. I have also contacted citizens advice and equifax credit score to get this wiped off my credit file. Does anyone suggest anything please., I am at my wits end. Thank you.