Civil Enforcement Ltd PCN Please help!

BarryStanyer

Further to my other recent thread about VCS I now have to deal with yet another PCN this time from Civil Enforcement Ltd.
The story goes:
I joined DW Fitness on Alexandra Retail Centre in Tunstall Stoke-on-Trent at the end of February 2016.
On the 7th March 2016 I had an induction day, then used the gym, swam in the pool etc.
I received a PCN from CEL dated 5th April 2016 saying that I was parked from 10:44:31 to14:01:59 requiring payment of the PCN as it was a maximum of 3 hours free parking with no return within an hour.
Fee within 28 days £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.
I honestly never even saw a 3 hour notice although it is there in Bold letters right alongside the number plate recognition camera on the entrance and on smaller notices on every lamp post all around the car park.
I like many other members of the gym, so I was told, ignored it. In fact the Gym Personal Trainer said she had at least 6 of these going back years.
Lucky me! I went away on holiday 22nd Feb 2017 only to return on the 10th March 2017 to find a County Court Business Centre claim for £329.10 issue dated 21st Feb 2017.
Panic set in as it said I should complete acknowledgement of service form or a defence within 14 days!
I read up as quickly as I could many different threads for newbies and about VCS and then acknowledged via registering on line via the moneyclaim link.
I rang the court the very next day and checked if I still had time to defend this and they told me that now I had acknowledged online I had until the 28th March to submit any documentation, appeal or supporting evidence.
I have spent hours reading hundreds of threads about CEL, the Courts, various defence statements submitted etc and I must admit I am very punch drunk!
I am sick to my stomach worrying about this after just being to court over my other fine of £203 and having paid another CEL fine for my son of £60 ( His mum said she wanted it paid outright as she couldn't deal with all the hastle)
Please, please, please can someone help or advice exactly what I need to do or write?

Coupon-mad

I went away on holiday 22nd Feb 2017 only to return on the 10th March 2017 to find a County Court Business Centre claim for £329.10 issue dated 21st Feb 2017.
Panic set in as it said I should complete acknowledgement of service form or a defence within 14 days!
I read up as quickly as I could many different threads for newbies and about VCS and then acknowledged via registering on line via the moneyclaim link.

Good. Luckily for you, CEL are the easiest PPC to see off with a generic defence. Look how easy this is, no hearing, nothing:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72207294#Comment_72207294

having paid another CEL fine for my son of £60 ( His mum said she wanted it paid outright as she couldn't deal with all the hastle)

What, is her Google broken? She thinks 'hassle' is sending one email appeal and winning immediately, first try??! CEL are so easy to beat at appeal! :eek:

Can I have some money too (joking - but stop being pushover victims). CEL would have folded after ONE appeal.

Redx

edit post #1 and remove any hint of who the driver was, just say THE DRIVER , or THE KEEPER at any point where you need to identify anyone

post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread details how you defend against these court claims, please read it

BarryStanyer

Wow! Thanks for the link to the template I did find it previously but was concerned about some of its content e.g Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage
Their sign when read close up does say they use ANPR cameras.
What is the paragraph about visiting with family etc please?
The claim document I have is signed by Ashley Cohen not the Leagl Team although the letter before action does state Micheal Schwartz Legal Team.
Could they have changed it to be more successful perhaps?

Coupon-mad

No. They stop every time, that's just one example of dozens for over a year!

To find one about Ashley Cohen, simply search the forum for 'CEL defence Cohen'. It is that simple.

BarryStanyer

Hi Coupon-Mad, I have read various threads for two days now and think I should use the following template but have further questions which I have highlighted in orange. Your help as always will be much appreciated.

[FONT=&quot]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. I have not yet requested anything? I did receive a Letter Before Action with a draft particulars of claim. Interestingly it stated an outstanding debt of £140 (£329.10 on the County Court papers)
(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.”

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible XXX for outstanding debt and damages. I have never received a NTK just an initial PCN then a reminder then ZZPS who doubled up to £200 then Wright Hassel transfer going to £236 with a formal Letter Before Action. Lastly CEL Particulars of Claim quoting Vine v Waltham Forest London

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. I have no idea if CEL hold a legitimate contract or not.

7/ 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. Can this really be stated if I have no idea about them having a contract?

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. If Mr Cohen is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated XXXX are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. Mine states Claimant claims the amounts owed, plus court and legal fees, and interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to the Claimant at such rate, and for such period, as the court thinks fit.

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 XXX My claim says that The Claimant (directly/through its agents) was left with no alternative but to escalate the matter as a result of their non-payment of the debt, which further increased the amount owed, in accordance with the terms of parking.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** requesting further information and details of the claim I have not corresponded with them at all!

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 [/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Remove this then:

despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information.

I have never received a NTK just an initial PCN

Well if it was postal, that was the NTK (same thing - the first posted letter is the NTK).

I have no idea if CEL hold a legitimate contract or not.

Doesn't matter; it is the Claimant's case to prove. Their burden, not yours.


But get rid of this if they haven't been kicked off the site yet:

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.

They always say this, so it makes no difference to your defence:

Mine states Claimant claims the amounts owed, plus court and legal fees, and interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to the Claimant at such rate, and for such period, as the court thinks fit.

As for this, you need to understand they have no case against a registered keeper so you were perfectly at liberty to ignore what appeared to be scam or junk mail and was none of your concern:

My claim says that The Claimant (directly/through its agents) was left with no alternative but to escalate the matter as a result of their non-payment of the debt, which further increased the amount owed, in accordance with the terms of parking.

Remove this:

(b) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** requesting further information and details of the claim.

BarryStanyer

Thanks again Coupon-mad I have amended my defence to the following:

[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.”

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £254.10 for outstanding debt and damages.

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:

This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
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. If Mr Cohen is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated XXXX 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 incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on XXX[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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
[/FONT]


If you agree this is suitable should I now fill in the detail, print and post it to the CCBC Northampton copy to CEL? I could not find an email address on the paperwork for the CCBC.

I have spoken to the Gym about this but they just say it is nothing to do with them, they suffer the same penalties. I have not written to the headoffice about this. Should I perhaps email a copy the defence with a covering letter to them

There are dozens of members, I'm told, who have had similar threats but I'm the only "lucky guy!" to have court papers. Some members I do know have just paid up the £60 as they say they can't deal with the letters, threats, research and hassle.
I really am very thankful for all the time you and other key forum members put into this.
Much as I wake up dreading dealing with this at all I will persevere, I just hope I can win this one at least.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Fruitcake

When you win, or it is discontinued (same thing) go back to the gym and tell them and every member you know that it was all a scam and nobody should be paying anything. Also tell everyone that they are not penalties. The gym should be ashamed of themselves, if for no other reason than not telling members that scammers operate in their car park.

Also cancel your gym membership and find somewhere that actually wants your custom. Leave negative feedback on social media warning that scammers operate in the car park and the gym don't care.

BarryStanyer

Thanks Fruitcake. Just hope I can win this one.

Coupon-mad

Remove this, not needed in a defence as your headings have the claim number and your name as Defendant:

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

And presumably you are reading other people's CEL defence versions in progress at the moment and not just staying on this thread? If so, you will have seen Lamilad's relevant suggestions on smiledotcom's very similar CEL defence thread last night.

If you agree this is suitable should I now fill in the detail, print and post it to the CCBC Northampton copy to CEL?

No, bargepole's advice in the NEWBIES thread post #2, about what happens when and how to deal with the paperwork, tells you who to serve it to. The defence does not get sent to CEL by you, only to the CCBC by post or email.

I could not find an email address on the paperwork for the CCBC.

No but you can find it when you Google 'CCBC email contact'. Email a signed & dated version scanned in and saved as a PDF.