Building a defence for a CCJ

Andym24

Hi,

Following on advice from couponmad's post on the **NEWBIES thread to post your defence on a new thread. I have started to build up my defence for a CCJ brought against me by Civil Enforcement Limited full details of the claim can be found here by searching the thread 'County Court Claim from civil enforcement ltd-Easton Street High Wycombe.

I have built up a defence using a template again from the **NEWBIES thread. Nevertheless, I have never been in this position before and had no engagement with any form of law before, so I am more than a little lost!

Some advice or tips on my defence from you lovely people would be so helpful.
Defence

1. What is the basis of the claim? How has Civil Enforcement Limited asserted that the defendant, who is the Keeper of the vehicle, has liability?
2. Please provide original and unedited photographic evidence of the purported contravention which clearly shows the driver of the vehicle in question.
3. Is Civil Enforcement Limited making a claim as an agent of the landholder or is Civil Enforcement Limited making the claim as occupier in their own right?
4. If Civil Enforcement Limited is making a claim as an agent of the landholder, please provide a full unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner which demonstrates the claimants authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and litigate in their own name
5. Please provide the full legal identity of the landowner or occupier and proof of their status
6. Is the amount claimed by Civil Enforcement Limited for a genuine pre estimate of loss for a breach of contract or a contractual sum?
7. Were there signs at the entrance to the site on the date in question? Did these meet the Independent Parking Committee’s Code of Practice?
8. If the contract has been conveyed by the use of signage on site, please provide copies of the signs on which you rely and confirm these are the signs in situ on the date of the event. Please also provide the date these signs were installed, for example, a site plan, a works schedule, maintenance record or invoice for the work.
9. Civil Enforcement Limited has stated that the alleged contravention took place at 18.11. Please provide details of the artificial lighting (e.g. lux levels) that were in place at the time of the alleged contravention to support visual interpretation of the signage, for example a site plan, manufacturer’s literature.
11. Please provide evidence that the artificial lighting was in good repair at the time and date of the alleged contravention, for example, a site maintenance record.
12. Provide a copy of the PCN Terms and Conditions on the date of even
13. The summary of terms request that ‘non-permit holders must register for a permit on a touch screen at reception.’ However, the reception was shut at this time therefore preventing access to the touch screen to purchase the aforementioned permit.

I look forward to some replies
Andrew

Redx

please note there is no CCJ in this case at the moment

there will be an MCOL from Northampton Bulk Centre , but to have a CCJ against you it would have to have been to court, you would have to have lost , and then not paid the judgment within 28 days - None of this has happened so there is no outstanding CCJ

see post #19 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5576468

I suggest you amend your thread and post accordingly , because you are defending an MCOL

bargepole

That isn't a Defence at all, it's a series of questions which might form a Part 18 request.

You don't ask questions in a Defence; you assert all the reasons why their claim should not succeed.

Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid.

Coupon-mad

I am more than a little lost!

You only have to find another CEL defence thread!

Copy one, search for 'CEL Defence' or simply go back ten pages and find one.

Andym24

Thankyou for all your help,I will take some time and look through all the defences and propose mine on here.

Andym24

Hi all,

Firstly, I want to thank you for your time and patience fighting these cowboys, your advice is greatly appreciated. I have outlined my defence below, after researching previous defences it appears a generic response is successful, therefore I have copied and adapted DPB defence to make it relevant to myself. Any tips would be fantastic.

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number

Claimant: Civil Enforcement Limited

Defendant

Defence Statement

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 7/4/2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Claimant’s Legal Representative”.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. 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.
(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 Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
(d) 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. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of 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.

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 £327.14 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

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 that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
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.
(iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

Date: 29/4/2017

Redx

EDIT the above again and remove your personal details

so no name , no court references , no claim number , nothing that identifies you or your case

this is a public forum, so be careful when you post stuff on the internet

Coupon-mad

after researching previous defences it appears a generic response is successful, therefore I have copied and adapted DPB defence to make it relevant to myself.

Looks fine now, these do work:

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

Should be an end to it, once submitted.

Andym24

Update:
Hi,

Following the great advice on this forum I built up a defence for my parking fine CCJ case (see above) and sent it off to the correct parties. I thought this would be the end of it as I didn't hear back from anyone for a well over a month.

However, recently I have received a 'notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track' . I am unsure what this means and if I need to respond to it as the defendant.

I would be grateful for any advice you could offer

Once again your time and expertise are very much appreciated

Redx

post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread details all you need to know , especially the threads and posts by BARGEPOLE that are linked in there

please read it

Andym24

Thankyou I have read the relevant information for the small claims questionnaire. From the information on the forum this means that my case will now be going to court which is not something I want to do. If I ignore the letter or go to mediation will I end up having to pay the whole fee they have tried to charge me?

Thanks