CEL county court claim received

[Deleted User]

Hello,

Would someone mind please helping me with my court defence?
I have read the newbies section and believe i've done all I can, now I just need to format a defence. However, there are so many different versions of this and thats where I get a bit lost!

Background is that someone parked in a restaurant car park for 15 mins whilst making a phone call, we received the first notification from CEL on 2/6/16 saying the offence was on 5/5/16. Am I correct is saying this is then too late? There was no ticket placed on the car.
We ignored all reminders (we didn't realise things have now changed!)
We now have had court papers.

So I believe that CEL have made three errors...
1. The PCN was more than 14 days after the incident
2. I have spoken to the council and there is no planning permission in place for the ANPR machine and the signage?
3. The county claim form is signed off 'civil enforcement limited'

I have completed the online court claim that says I will be defending all the claim (claim form dated 7th April) I now just need to format my defence, can I please have some help?

Thank you so much!

Lamilad

First of all you've done the right thing in finding this forum. Whilst CEL are very litigious they always back out when up against a defendant assisted by this forum. In fact I'm not aware of an assisted defendant ever having to appear in court (I stand to be corrected).

You've also done the right thing in reading the NEWBIES thread... but then you forgot the next stage - reading other threads with CEL court defences - there are loads on here and pepipoo

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60

Use the search box at the top of page 1 of this forum and the Google Custom search on pepipoo to search keywords like 'CEL court',' CEL defence'. There have been loads of CEL defences posted on this forum and they're all pretty similar so find one you like and post it here for review, or cobble one together using paragraphs from several CEL defences.

Each case has unique factors so don't look for one that is taylor-made for your case, just post a defence up here and we will help you personalise it.

IMPORTANT! - Edit your opening post as it identifies the driver - You MUST NOT say or suggest who was driving - you are defending this as the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle, NOT the driver. Make reference only to "the driver".... e.g. "the driver parked the car"

Have you communicated with CEL previously about this case? If so what have you said? Have you said or suggested who was driving?

[Deleted User]

There has been no communication between ourselves and CEL.

Thanks, will look now and try and post one. I have read through a few defences but just got a bit baffled! Will attempt one now.............

Thank you!!!

[Deleted User]

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 “Civil Enforcement Limited”.

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’.
(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. The PCN was issued 28 days after the incident.
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 £253.38 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:

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.. 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 7th April 2017
(b) not got planning permission from the local council to use the ANPR machine or erect their signage in the car park.


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

Coupon-mad

Looks fine to me. CEL ones are quite generic and we don't expect you to hear any more.

[Deleted User]

Hello,
So I have received a DQ this morning in this post.......does this mean that CEL are pressing ahead with the claim??
HELP!!

Coupon-mad

Only to the point of DQ, it's common at the mo, several on pepipoo got the same. No big deal, I expect they are hoping to flush out numpties who pay and get scared, or people who might forget to complete the DQ.

Go to the NEWBIES thread and tick the right boxes and send the DQ to the CCBC and to CEL.

[Deleted User]

Thank you! Will do this and send tomorrow!

[Deleted User]

Hi,

Sorry but I have read the newbies bit but still can't work out if receiving the N271 form (which we have today) shows that CEL are pressing ahead with their claim?
Does this mean we will be going to court to fight this??
Many thanks

Umkomaas

You have to work on the basis that if they are continuing to follow process (via the documents being issued) they are moving closer to a court hearing.

They are the only ones in control here (unless you pay them - but no encouragement to do that will come from this forum) and they can discontinue at any time, which, based on recent past performance, them may well do.

But until that happens you have to continue dancing to their tune and work on the basis that you will need to defend this at a hearing.

Prepare for the worst, then you won't be shocked if this goes the distance.

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/209884205-Notice-of-Transfer-of-Proceedings-N271-

Lamilad

So I have received a DQ this morning!

In take it this was the DQ for you to fill in? Have you received a completed copy of CEL's DQ?