Civil Enforcement LTD Recar Fine

anclibertees

Hello,

I am seeking advise/guidence to how to precede. Today I recieved a county court claim against me for £323.57 in total (£248.57 + £25 court fee + £50 legal fees), for a parking fine I recieved last year outside Franks Factory Flooring in Redcar.
The claim form is just signed as: Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative).
The original fine was for £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.
The carpark is free (but restricted) so how can any losses be incurred by the landowner?

I had just bought coffee from a nearby Mcdonalds and my girlfriend had spilled it on herself so pulled over by the side of the road, but as I was causing problems to over road users so I decided to go into the carpark, I presumed it was like any other retail type carpark that Frank's operate in and completely free, I did not see the signs on entering the car park or for the duration of my stay and knew nothing until I recieved the letter from CE through the post. Aparently you have to enter the shop and input your registration into some computer to avoid the fine. I rang the manager of Frank's and he said it was nothing to do with them and he couldn't do anything about it and he didn't know who the landowner was. I contacted the council to see who the landowner was and they just advised me to use a paying website to find out who owned the land.
Now I sent a letter in reply to the fine based on something I got online:

[FONT=&quot]14th September 2016[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Unknown legal landowner[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Dear Sir or Madam,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ticket number: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Vehicle registration number: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You issued me with a parking ticket on 18/08/2016 but I believe it was unfairly and possibly unlawfully issued. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reasons:
[/FONT]

· [FONT=&quot]There is no [/FONT][FONT=&quot]legal landowner stated on the Parking Charge Notice.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]There was insufficient signage[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The car park in question has no clear signage at the entrance to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Please see attached evidence,There were no clear signs at the entrance therefore I was unaware that there were restrictions on parking on entering the car park and I did not view any signs stating the restriction while parked, so they must have not have been sufficiently clear/bold/brightly coloured to raise my attention to the restrictions, I therefore feel I have been mislead into thinking it was OK to park and that it was a charge free car park as in most other retail parks. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As I did not view a sign notifying me of the restricted parking therefore I was unable to enter into a contract with you.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]See attached picture evidence for the entrance, route taken to park and location I was parked in. [/FONT]


· [FONT=&quot]The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The amount you have charged is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to your company or the landowner.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]In my case, the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]£100[/FONT][FONT=&quot] charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner as the car park was not full and there were many spaces available, I never left the vehicle (and not asked to leave, which I would have immediately done if asked to do so) and I was parked for 32 minutes and 1 second only, I therefore feel the charge you have asked for is excessive. That works out to be more than £3.12 per minute![/FONT]


· [FONT=&quot]Quite simply if I had known about the parking restrictions I would never have parked there.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]I was a visitor to Redcar on that day, in fact my first ever visit, therefore I am not familiar with the local parking restrictions and this parking charge makes me not want to return to Redcar in the future, also I have been a customer of Frank’s Factory Flooring on a number of occasions to which this car park is serving. I have always found purchasing from Frank’s Factory Flooring to be a pleasant experience and very good value, this parking charge now has me viewing Frank’s Factory Flooring in a very negative way and I will definitely be taking my business elsewhere in future. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yours faithfully,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Maybe in this letter I admitted that I was the driver.

Can anyone direct me to a defense letter on here that would fit what I require.
This whole thing has been worrying as I don't want to get a CCJ against me or my parrents home, but I think the fine is unfair and I didn't enter into any contract and that I have been entrapped by this.

Can a counter claim be made against CE or is this unwinnable?


Any advise is most appreciated

Coupon-mad

The carpark is free (but restricted) so how can any losses be incurred by the landowner?

That argument has no legs in a defence.

Maybe in this letter I admitted that I was the driver.

Yes you 100% did. That template is diabolical, where the heck did you dredge that from? I'd like to warn people against such utterly awful advice.

Can anyone direct me to a defense letter on here that would fit what I require.

It's 'defence' not USA 'defense'.

But yes you need to read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, all links, everything there in post #2 about defending small claims. Examples are there.

This whole thing has been worrying as I don't want to get a CCJ against me or my parents home,

Doesn't happen even if you lose at a hearing, as long s you defend and turn up if there is a hearing. Even a person who loses gets no CCJ at all if they then pay within 30 days of the Judge's order. Nothing at all, no effect on anyone's credit rating as long as no court deadlines/paperwork is ignored.

With CEL, our defences have caused CEL to stop and discontinue cases every time for a year. Not a single one lost, not a single one has even progressed to a hearing. You have not helped by naming the driver though, that was awful and removes several points of defence, which you will learn when you read the NEWBIES thread post #2.

Come back and tell us when you've done the AOS on MCOL, and show us your draft defence based on other CEL ones you can easily find (no links given, you need to simply search & find them as well as reading the NEWBIES advice thread post #2).

anclibertees

I have done the AOS on MCOL, I know I've left it very late but I have a lot of things going on in my life at the minute. Anyway here is the defence I propose to use (minus the stuff about contacting them and liability, as I have stupidly addmitted I was the driver in contacting them) I have marked in red what I maybe should remove, can you confirm this is correct, thanks.

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

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1/ The Claim Form issued on the 21 February 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 “Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

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 repeated requests for 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.
(d) A ‘Schedule of Information’ sent by the Claimant was sparse of detailed information:
1. The defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
2. The Vehicle Registration Number.
3. The date and time of the alleged incident.
4. Car park name.
5. Outstanding amount and break down of costs.
6. A section entitled ‘Summary of terms’ with text that finishes mid-sentence. An earlier version of this document also included the section ‘Summary of terms’ with no text following it; both versions therefore appear incomplete.

It does not detail:
1. Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
2. Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged time.
3. How long or proof that the car was actually parked.
4. The vehicle type and colour.
5. Why the charge arose.

It has still not been made clear to the Defendant why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; and cannot be considered a fair exchange of information.

3/ The claimant has not 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.

4/ There can be no 'presumption' by the claimant that the keeper was the driver. 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. Neither the signs, nor the Notice to Keeper, mentioned a possible £323.57 for outstanding debt and damages.

5/ 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.

 
6/ 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 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.

7/ 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.

8/ 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.

9/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
The Claimant has no legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

10/ 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.

11/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirms that the penalty rule is still 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.

12/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If the ‘Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)’ is an employee then the Defendant suggests he/she is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated 7 April 2017 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 7 April 2017.
(b) failed to respond to an email (except for an automated email acknowledgement) from the Defendant dated XXX appealing the original PCN, requesting further information and details of the claim and failed to update the Defendant’s address details that were disclosed in this email.
(c) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated XXX requesting further information and details of the claim and again failed to update the Defendant’s address details that were disclosed in the letter.
(d) failed to respond to an email from the Defendant dated XXX requesting further information and details of the claim and which included a copy of the letter dated XXX. The Claimant again failed to update the Defendant’s address details which were included in the letter.
(e) failed to provide a POPLA code so that the matter could be referred for their decision (in accordance with BPA AOS Code of Practice 22.12) despite requesting this in the email from the Defendant dated XXX and letter from Defendant dated XXX (a copy of which was sent by email XXX).

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.


Mr

anclibertees

A couple of days after I recived the claim form from the county court, I recieved another letter from CEL stating the particulars of the claim, it was dated the same as the county court letter. The claim letter from CEL is signed by Ashley Cohen, whereas the county court claim form is signed "CiviL Enforcement Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative)". I presume this is what the first part of the defence is directed at, or am I wrong?

The_Deep

Who is the solicitor involved? If none scratch legal fees. If they have not paid the court fees yet, ditto.

Even if they were to win in court, the amount a judge is likely to award should around £200, so they are being a tad greedy.

If they do take you to court, make sure the legal rep has right of access.

anclibertees

What do you mean Right of access?

anclibertees

I have noticed that since the parking violation occured, they have changed the signage in the car park. After I first recieved the PCN I went back to see what signs were up, they were simple black with white writing and had no instructions of how to avoid the charge (entering reg number into system within shop).
I now see on the schedule of information page that there summary of terms is much more in depth than what was written at the time I parked there.

anclibertees

At this late stage, should I still ask for evidence from CEL or has a resonable amount of time passed? My defence is due to be filed in only a couple of days

Coupon-mad

You don't need to do anything except file that defence. CEL will stop. We know for a year or more, that they are looking for weak defences and people to just fold and pay. You are neither so your case will be indefinitely stayed. You are lucky this is CEL and this is known.

anclibertees

Do I need to still delete the parts marked in red?