Civil Enforcement Ltd PCN Please help!

BarryStanyer

Thanks again Coupon-Mad
Filling in my defence the first section states:
[FONT=&quot]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”.
My CCBC claim form is signed Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative)
Should I change the first part to say:
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Yes. Is it really signed Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative)?

BarryStanyer

Also in the CEL Particulars of Claim they say in section 5
When the Defendant parked their vehicle (on the date and time as set out in the attached schedule of Information) in the Car Park they accepted, by their conduct, the terms and conditions of parking. See Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2000] 4 All ER 169
Their are no specific terms and conditions on their car park signage just the bold lettering 3 hour parking no return within 1 hour then underneath in the small lettering "If you exceed the free parking allowance, or if you park in a disabled bay without displaying a valid disabled badge, you agree to pay £100"
They even say:
To settle this charge at a further reduced rate call 0115 822 5020 before leaving this site.
Do I take it hese statements can be regarded as T&C's?

BarryStanyer

Sorry Coupon-Mad maybe I'm being naive?
It is printed with
signed Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative)?

Coupon-mad

No you are right, that's not a legal person.

And yes, what is on the signs are the t&cs. But it won't matter, if CEL discontinue the claim as they have done with every single one seen and assisted on here in over a year.

BarryStanyer

Hi Coupon-Mad Sent off my defence registered post based on bargepole's advice.
I have spoken to the Gym Manager again today and she has given me the email address of the landowner.
Then she said people who have emailed him have had their penalties dropped. Great eh! Why didn't they tell me that months ago??
I wondered if you could please offer any advice on what I should put in the email to the landowner or if you have a link I can follow to a suggested template email?

Coupon-mad

You could look in the thread 'Successful Complaints about PPCs' linked among the first words in the NEWBIES thread post #1.

BarryStanyer

Hi Coupon-Mad I emailed the following to the land management company I hope it may help others:

[FONT=&quot]Dear Sir,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe that you are the Landowner for the above Retail Centre where I joined DW Fitness.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am a disabled pensioner but intend to try and remain as fit as possible so joined this Gym on recommendation because it features a 25 metre pool.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On the 7th March 2016 I had my induction to establish what Gym equipment would be beneficial taking into account my spinal disability.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I then completed a circuit of the recommended exercise before swimming in the pool and enjoying the company of others for a chat in the Jacuzi. I showered then left the Gym to shop in the Home Bargains and Iceland stores.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The convenience of these stores in such close proximity to the DW facility is excellent and I commend you on a much valued Retail Centre.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Unfortunately, on the 5th April 2016 I received a Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement Limited for the period 10:44:31 to 14:01:59[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Being disabled my driver parked correctly in a disabled parking bay displaying my blue badge and timer card which by my estimation said 3 hours having allowed time to manouver around the park, find a suitable space and park.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The fee requested was £100 in 28 days or £60 in 14 days.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Following this as the keeper of the car I received a series of harrassing and very threatening corresondence.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A company called ZZPS doubled it to £200 by the 12th July.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have now received a County Court Business Claim from Civil Enforcement Limited for a sum of £329.10 threatening the success of another case Parking Eye V Beavis as justification to go to court.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have through internet researched and put a defence forward as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number XXXX
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v XXXX
Defence Statement


The Claim Form issued on the XXXX by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person.

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.
(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.

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 XXXX
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 XXXX

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have enquired within the Gym and it appears some members have received as many as 6 PCNs and various threats from CEL it just seems that I am the unlucky one for them to be persuing court action.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is a shame that such an excellent Retail Centre is being blighted by the actions of CEL.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If this goes to a court hearing my membership and that of others will of course cease and the adjoining retail outlets will lose the knock on business.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The local Sentinel newspaper and Stoke Radio have been following the actions of such Parking Companies along with my local MP and Council Leader.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Do you have a contract with CEL as the landowner to prosecute in this manner?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Do you support such bully boy tactics as CEL seem to follow?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

The immediate reply was:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thanks for your email regarding the car park at Alexander Retail Park and we have had similar problems but none have gone this far and brought to my attention.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The problem we have at this site is that when our clients purchased the retail park we inherited this parking enforcement contract that we were unable to terminate. We have now given notice to terminate the arrangement which was the earliest opportunity but they are disputing it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The car park rules are the rules and in place for good reason to ensure people visiting the town centre do not just park up and leave the car all day as everyone else charges for parking so some sort of system will always be needed. That said if I had been contacted at the time we would have arranged for termination of your parking ticket as we have the ability to do this remotely via the car park enforcement companies website. We are however unable to terminate your ticket as it is too old and because they have referred to Solicitors is outside our control due to the contract we inherited.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]All that said we really don’t want to cause any ill feeling with customers of the retail park so I am willing to help if possible. The best way forward is probably for you to give me a call later today.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Many thanks.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I have spoken to them directly and asked if they would complete the following and forward it to CEL copy me, in an attempt to get CEL to withdraw:
[/FONT]
Re parking charge notice XXXX issued by Civil Enforcement Limited
I XXXX, do not support our agents, Civil Enforcement Limited pursuing the issue of a parking charge notice issued to XXXX in respect of a vehicle registration XXXX through the court system and wasting valuable court time and public money on an issue that can easily be resolved out of court XXXX is a customer of ours, using the DW Fitness Gym Alexander Retail Park for the duration of the parking event.
We therefore ask that this unreasonable action by our agents against one of our valued customers is struck out (cancelled) with immediate effect

Signed Name _____________

Date___________________

[FONT=&quot]
I hope I have done correctly and acted as efficiently as I can.
Do you have any further or alternative advice?
Many Thanks.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Looks like a very good set of actions by you, hope the Gym sign that.

I see he said this:

We have now given notice to terminate the arrangement which was the earliest opportunity but they are disputing it.

Unfortunately they are opening a can of worms because when contracts are terminated, CEL retaliate by suing pretty much all their back catalogue of pending PCNs, regardless of staff or customer.

As the Co-op learned last year, to their detriment, when CEL were suing loads of Co-op staff - it all went very quiet so we assume the Co-op may have paid to settle it and get shot of CEL without publicity. An awful firm to use.

BarryStanyer

Hi Everyone I thought it was time to check onm the outcome of the CEL Court Action so I rang the court.
Thanks to the defense found on this excellent forum it appears that CEL have not responded and the matter has now gone to what they call "stayed". This apparently means that CEL have to pay £100 to reinstate their claim, which I hope they will not do.
My only concern here is that apparently this claim even though "stayed" will remain on record for ever. It doesn't appear to expire or get removed deleted or otherwise cancelled.
Thanks to everyone who gave me help advise and templates to use in this case, especially yourself Coupon-Mad