County Court Claim - CEL

Wilecoyotep

Hello All

Been browsing for a while after this whole saga started and have read all the FAQ etc. Very helpful so thank you.

Situation was as follows:

The driver parked in a site where they regularly get breakfast / lunch etc and occasionally shop back in Nov 2015.

The driver has never seen signs at this place stating a time to park etc (and the driver is usually very vigilant on this) so the driver was there allegedly from 09.54:13 to 11.14:19 with their claim that it was 1 hour free parking etc.

First letter came to the drivers employer as it was a company car on 22 January 2016. They unfortunately just wrote to CEL identifying the normal driver of the vehicle. A PCN the arrived addressed to the driver at end of February 2016. Checked at the site on back of this at the end of January and there were no signs at all so assumed they didn't have a contract there anymore.

Also unfortunately asked Private Parking Appeals Ltd to deal with the appeal etc etc as was mega busy at the time. Big mistake. Whilst they gave a bit of advice, have been unable to establish if they actually appealed at all through POPLA and they have proven to be very unhelpful since - It took 10 phone calls and 20 emails between May and August 2016 to get a response which basically informed that as they hadn't had all correspondence supplied to they were unable to help.

Given them up as a bad job as the letters from zzps and wright hassal etc stopped arriving (followed the advice on here they were ignored.

04/04/16 - Final Reminder (all in red)
18/05/16 - Letter Before Action (bog standard, draft particulars with Michael Schwartz name on it unsigned) - Does have schedule on back that states: veh reg, date, arrival time and departure, Site name & postcode, outstanding amount -0 £140 including legal fees and interest to date, plus summary of terms (1 hour free parking - If you park for longer than the free allowance, you agree to pay our charge. To deter abuse of this car park, these terms apply 24 hours a day. Additional costs will be incurred if payment is not received within 28 days).
17/06/16 - ZZPS letter, amount now increased to £200
22/07/16 - Wright Hassal, amount now increased to £236
08/08/16 - Wright Hassal, formal letter of claim

Fast forward to 16th January and a County Court claim from CEL drops on the mat. Again followed the advice on here and completed the acknowledgement of service to buy some more time.

Hasten to add - haven't acted sooner with defence because wonderfully at the same time, have lost my job and have been dealing with the settlement there... it never rains eh?

Anyway, have done lots of reading and have prepared a defence to submit and would appreciate any advice at this stage. Have given up on PPA Ltd as a waste of space and have chalked down the £18 as experience money but would rather not have to pay the £332.98 these shysters at CEL are trying to obtain.

Hopefully have got it right, defence below. Have until 14th Feb to file defence (28 days +5).

All help much appreciated:


In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Between
XXXX XXXXXXX Vs Civil Enforcement Ltd

I am XXXX XXXXXX the defendant in this matter and was the allocated user of the vehicle ZZZZ XXX. I currently reside at XX XXXXX.

The Claim Form issued on the 12th January 2017 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 totally deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for 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) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain minimal information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with date and site of 'incident' without evidence of any sort (in particular - no photographs on which their claim is based).
(b) Additionally, the Claim form Particulars divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail regarding their claim other than sums claimed. The Defendant does not know what they are claiming for - why there was a charge? What specifically are these charges for? What was the alleged contract?; no information that would be considered a fair exchange of information.
(c) The Claimant states in their particulars that 'I will provide the Defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form'. These separate detailed particulars have not been provided as at 8th February, 27 days after the original Issue date on the claim form.

3/ At the site in question there were Inadequate signs which are therefore 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 - a 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.

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.

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 is believed this is a case as such. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge utterly 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 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.

9/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If 'Mr Schwartz' and indeed 'The Legal Team' are employees then the Defendant suggests they are remunerated as such and as the draft particulars of claim dated 18th May 2016 are templates, it is not feasible that legal costs of £50 were incurred by the claimant. 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 12th January 2017

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action whatsoever. 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

8th February 2017

Redx

you need to learn to talk in the third person for legal issues, so edit post #1 asap

I think you will find that

THE DRIVER parked the vehicle

THE DRIVER went to get breakfast

THE DRIVER has genuinely never seen signs at this place stating a time to park etc

no "me , myself or I" allowed on this forum - period

or do you not believe that 7 billion people including parking scumpanies read forums like this one (and you dont even need to sign up to read it)

so not as "wiley" as you thought

Wilecoyotep

Duly edited (twice), thanks for the guidance.. hope I've done it right!

Redx

excellent edit

whilst awaiting a response for your defence statement ,

1) can you also check and advise people here if CEL complied with the requirements listed by edna basher for leased vehicles as regards the contracts etc ? (for POFA2012 etc)

2) did you complain to the landholder and did they reply ?

and do you know the landholders details etc ? becasue CEL will not own the land , so you really need to get the landholder on your side due to the patronage of the driver to the shops onsite

the idea is not to deter customers , but to deter bilkers

Wilecoyotep

Hi,

1) Not 100% sure. There wasn't anything that looked like a notice to owner brought to the drivers attention. First thing was a PCN dated 22/01/16 addressed to the company for an incident 13/11/15. This was received 25/01/16.

2) No unfortunately. Is this still worth doing or has that ship sailed?

I'll look into the landowner details, it's a very small area with a Heron Foods store, a Subway and a Greggs (plus one empty lease). The driver was a customer of all three retailers.

Coupon-mad

9/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If 'Mr Schwartz' and indeed 'The Legal Team' are employees then the Defendant suggests they are remunerated as such and as the draft particulars of claim dated 18th May 2016 are templates, it is not feasible that legal costs of £50 were incurred by the claimant. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

Has Mr Schwartz signed it or someone else? Did the claim form have detailed particulars of claim or did it say they would follow? Did they?

Wilecoyotep

The original LBA has his name on the bottom of the draft particulars sent May 2016 but it is not signed anywhere - pretty clear its an automated letter.

The claim form doesn't have any detailed particulars - it just says they will follow within 14 days after the service of the claim form. They haven't sent anything as of today's date. This is referred to in defence point 2C.

Glacier_2

Who signed the claim form (N1)? It will be a named person.

Wilecoyotep

Name in the box is "Legal team"

Glacier_2

I thought their fee was £19.00?


Did you email Private Parking Appeals a copy of the claim form?


Surely if you paid them a fee they could look at this for you as it seems strange they would not assist you in this matter – although it would appear that you did not email the information according to your opening statement?

Wilecoyotep

You are right it was £19. They were sent everything they asked for, told they would appeal on the last day and then didn't respond to any contacts for four months. At that point to receive a snotty email being accused of breaching their T&C's when they'd not stated what needed to be done kind of irked. That was the point they got left behind as a poor service not to be trusted.