Civil enforcement county court papers

Crook6468

So august 2016 my wife took my daughter to our local hospital. Cel had just taken over running the FREE car park. I don't know for sure if all the new signs were erected but no effort was made by hospital staff to draw attention to the new parking rules. Some time later the first pcm letter arrived. My wife responded by email which they appear to have chose to ignore and proceeded as if no response had been received. Blah, blah, blah usual stuff now have county court business centre paperwork and a bill of £323.47. what a joke!! Pointers please, do I go on moneyclaim.gov as instructed? Do I need to contact the hospital to confirm my daughter was treated that day? Do I need to contact our normally useless MP?? I got totally bogged down trying to fine the relevant advice on here most of which had different circumstances. All help and links much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Pointers please, do I go on moneyclaim.gov as instructed?

Yes to acknowledge the claim, to buy time to 28 days instead of 14, to copy from another CEL defence from here. We always beat them.

Do I need to contact the hospital to confirm my daughter was treated that day?

You should be formally complaining to the NHS Trust about this entire scam. It is against the Government's Policy - the NHS Car Park enforcement principles which have been around for over 3 years, long before the NHS Trust allowed CEL here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-car-parking-management-htm-07-03

Do I need to contact our normally useless MP??

Yes, why not? Show him/her the above Government official Health Policy and Dept for Health Memorandum, plus the debate from Parliament 3 weeks ago and ask what he is going to do to stop the NHS Trust form allowing patients to be sued by this notorious ex-clamper firm which is operating outside Government Policy and is a contract the NHS Trust should NEVER have signed:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-21/debates/382789C8-0168-4C4B-8260-0540AF83C7D3/DVLAAndPrivateCarParkingCompanies

I got totally bogged down trying to fine the relevant advice on here most of which had different circumstances.

So search the forum, stop clicking on random links without closing them - no ending up with 14 tabs open! No need.

Apart from reading post #2 of the NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST thread, All you need is two keywords 'CEL defence' and put them into 'search this board' back on page one where you clicked 'new thread'. NOT the top right box to search the whole of MSE, no no no (newbies always do that!).

Use the 'forum search' drop-down box which is level with 'new thread' on page one of this parking sub-forum. Put in 'CEL defence'. You will see everyone wins - no hearings, nothing. All been discussed to death and it is soooo easy to copy from a recent one from 2017.

Crook6468

Quick question, just how generic can the defense be? For example, it I leave in the parts about not follow the correct procedure and poor signage will any of this go against me as their particulars​ of claim state the opposite? I will of course alter all obviously relevant information. I'll post my draft later and send email+hard copy on Monday. Thanks for your help so far.

Lamilad

For example, it I leave in the parts about not follow the correct procedure and poor signage will any of this go against me as their particulars​ of claim state the opposite?

Of course the PoC state the opposite - they're worded to make you and the court believe they have a valid claim. So yes you include all the generic points about signage and procedural failings etc. i

The_Deep

£323 for parking at a hospital, and a court claim, welcome to Rip off Britain. This company is out of control, imagine the damage this could cause to a vulnerable with OAP with a hearf murmur.

Write very bad stuff on the hospital Facebook pages and twitter, complain to the PALS, The Daily Mail, local radio and TV stations and local papers, complain vociferously to the Department of Health and the local Trust.

Do as CM says, kick @rse.

Crook6468

[FONT="&amp]In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXXXX
Between:
[/FONT][FONT="&amp]Civil[/FONT][FONT="&amp] [/FONT][FONT="&amp]Enforcement[/FONT][FONT="&amp] Limited v XXXXXX XXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]
Defense Statement[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]I am Mr XXXXXX XXXXX the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX XXX. I currently reside at XX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

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

1. The Claim Form issued on the 07 April 2017 by [/FONT][FONT="&amp]Civil[/FONT][FONT="&amp] [/FONT][FONT="&amp]Enforcement[/FONT][FONT="&amp] [/FONT][FONT="&amp]Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Claimant’s Legal Representative”.[/FONT]

[FONT="&amp]2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol and as an example as to why this prevents a full defense being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contractor a contractual charge. All of these are treated differently in law and require a different defense. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the defendant. (a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction. [/FONT]
[FONT="&amp](b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
(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. The car park name. 5. Outstanding amount and break down of costs.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]3. I was not the driver of the vehicle on the day of the alleged offence, the driver has not been evidenced and I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the protection of Freedoms Act2012 (POFA). Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the alleged offense and when the notice was served, it did not comply fully with statutory wording. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions. [/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]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 the vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”[/FONT]

[FONT="&amp]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) 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 £323.47 for outstanding debt and damages.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred[/FONT]

[FONT="&amp]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. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage at the time that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case. Additional signage has since been added after the date of the alleged offence.
a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) 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.
(ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp](iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.[/FONT]

[FONT="&amp]7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]It is believed [/FONT][FONT="&amp]Civil[/FONT][FONT="&amp] [/FONT][FONT="&amp]Enforcement[/FONT][FONT="&amp] [/FONT][FONT="&amp]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.

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.

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 07 April 2017.
(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

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 confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp] [/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]
Date[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Difficult to read until the formatting is sorted a bit.

Crook6468

For some reason it wouldn't let me post my Ctrl-V but you get the idea??? any help much appreciated as it'll be emailed and in the post Monday.

Crook6468

Not sure how to sort it?

Coupon-mad

To help you check you have everything we normally suggest, this thread has a defence and a link to a successful one too:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5620993

HTH

Crook6468

Just found out two people I know have had refunds after they paid the fines and CEL no longer have a contract?