County court business centre

ShizAyub

Hi Guys,

Got a final reminder letter demanding £100 but didn't know what it was for so i wrote a letter to civil enforcement ltd demanding what the £100 was for as the final reminder letter looked fake. So they sent me the 1st reminder in the post but no evidence of the car being illegally parked. They advised that we overstayed. So then i contacted them but did not get a response from them but instead from ZZPS who asked for £160 and then i receive a letter from civil enforcement limited asking for £140! So i wrote ZZPS a email and sent Civil enforcement ltd a letter and heard nothing back until now. What would be my next steps? Ive only logged in on moneyclaim.gov.uk and registered, should i start AOS?

The amount now is:
Amount claimed: £256.64
Court fee: £25
Legal representatives: £50
Total amount: £331.64

Court address: County court business centre, 4th Floor St Katherine's House, 21-27 St Katharine's house, Northampton, NN1 2LH

The letter is signed - Civil enforcement Limited

I have not heard anything from them since my letter to them dated 25/05/2016 until now. Guys how do i upload pictures of the letters i sent and emails? Thank you

Redx

read and follow the court advice in the NEWBIES sticky thread please

plus read a few recent similar court claims where the advice has already been given, seeing as this is a recurring daily topic on here now, the advice does not change or if its does that sticky thread is updated to reflect any changes

ShizAyub

Thank you. I have read this faq. I am thinking of submitting this to the online claim in my defense. What do you guys think?

It is near impossible to get in contact with civil enforcement limited on the contact number they provide and they will not reply or send evidence of the alleged offence. I have full correspondence and emails sent to ZZPS and letters sent to Civil Enforcement Limited to which they sent no evidence or replied to emails and letters sent. The correspondence date follows:

I sent them a letter on 28/03/2016 to advise them that I have received a letter advising of a final reminder and a sum of £100 but not giving any information as to what it is for or any previous letters as I tried many times to call them but there was no answer. I was then sent a generic letter dated 12/04/2016 to which they said they demanded a sum of £60 but still no evidence.

I then kindly replied to the letter on 15/04/2016 advising them that please send evidence. I also decided that I should pay the £60 in the meantime but will claim it back based upon the evidence sent but when I went online to the civil enforcement limited website it was demanding £100 therefore after trying to contact them and being unsuccessful by telephone to advise them the website is demanding the incorrect amount I was unable to pay.

I then heard nothing from Civil enforcement limited but instead from a company called ZZPS who advised me the amount now is £160. I advised ZZPS by phone and letter explaining that an attempt was made to pay the correct amount of £60 but due to the civil enforcement ltd website demanding £100 and no response from civil enforcement limited or unable to contact them on the number provided by them as nobody ever answers. ZZPS advised they will contact civil enforcement limited. I then receive a generic letter ignoring anything I sent them from Civil enforcement limited advising me that it is a sum of £140.

I then sent them a letter and email to ZZPS on 25/05/2016 advising them that all my correspondence and emails have been ignored and due to this civil enforcement limited are penalising me and sending me generic letters demanding random amounts. I once again attached my letter of 15/04/2016 to the letter but heard nothing more from civil enforcement limited or ZZPS. Now I have received the claim form from the county court business centre.

Vickyah21

I've had one today as well. They seem to have sent a bulk lot out today and there are now a few on here just from today. I really don't know what to do, waiting for some more advice...

Redx

that is not a defence , its just a statement of facts , like a witness statement

witness statements and evidence etc come much later down the process

you need to prepare a defence based on legal arguments, so study a few other defences on any threads about court claims over the last 12 months and plagiarise them

I can assure you that submitting a statement like the one above will ensure you will lose in this battle of wills, this is claimant versus defendant , where legal arguments prevail and there are NONE in that witness statement

that post above , with some editing , may be useful when the witness statement is sent in later down the track

ShizAyub

Thanks Redx. So it seems below is the plagiarised generic defence to be sent, in my case what do you think?

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 21 February 2017
(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

Redx

I am not legally trained so will not comment on the content , other than to say its is the sort of thing you should be adapting , but as this is a court case , a legal case going in front of a judge that you will be signing as true , you should ensure that the content is true , as the one you have copied may differ to your own , so ensure each part is true , add anything that should be added and remove anything that is NOT TRUE

remember , you are doing this ON OATH and will be in worse trouble if there is any lies or incorrect statements in it

no need to rush if you have acknowledged the claim online , PUT NOTHING in the defence box (are you sure you have read the bargepole thread ?)

what does bargepole actually say about this stage ?
how does he say it should be submitted ?
what font ? ,
what spacing ?
how long do you have after the date of service to submit this defence ?

why am I asking this ?

because you seem to want to do it online and to rush it , thats why

calm down , make sure this is 100% correct, because you cannot add to it later down the track

also, compare it to your post earlier, tell me if its different or not ? lol

now you see why I said your earlier one was , to put it mildly a four letter word ending in T

Coupon-mad

ShizAyub wrote: »

Thanks Redx. So it seems below is the plagiarised generic defence to be sent, in my case what do you think?

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 21 February 2017
(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

YES. But only put things like this if true:

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.

And you will find newer ones if you search 'CEL defence Legal team'.

ShizAyub

Thank you COUPON-MAD. I will research this up. Thank you guys for all the help Vickyah21 i think my case maybe different as i contacted them and then heard nothing from them or a reply to my letter i sent them back in May 2016. Thanks

Redx

sorry to burst your bubble , but not hearing from them for 9 or 10 months is neither here nor there, seeing as they have 72 months to get their ducks in a row and try a court case

so not hearing anything for 1 or more years is not uncommon , some claims are over 5 years in the making

dont get sidetracked by false assumptions , its only over when the fat lady sings , or 6 years have passed

ShizAyub

Just a update guy, claim response was submitted but i have heard nothing back. Claim is currently on " Date of service of 02/03/2017 notified on 16/03/2017 at 09:17:58 ". Do CEL have a time limit to respond to my defence? Just like i had a time limit to respond to their claim against me? Thanks