Civil enforcement Ltd missed 14 days claim form

System

It has allowed us to fill in the MCOL and we got as far as confirmation of "Completed Acknowledgement of Service"

Well done. Now get on with the defence which needs to be back at court by 7th May.

The AOS should have been done by 26th but it appears that CEL failed to ask for a default CCJ so you have been lucky. PS Print out that page that shows "Completed Acknowledgement of Service" just in case

parist

Thanks IamEmanresu. I will be on this ASAP. Cannot let this sort of injustice happen to family, friends and all innocent citizens!

Coupon-mad

Good, now you will win! Defence time (and it is only CEL):

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

parist

Thank you Coupon-mad. I've been reading your helpful comments in other posts. Sterling work!

I will be working on the defence letter this weekend. Could be doing better things with my time

cannot let such people get away with such a scam.

parist

Please can someone check my draft defence (below) for the County Court Business Centre.
i've only a few days left to register post this & send an electronic file.

Many Thanks!!

---

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim No.: ****
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXX (Defendant)

[FONT=&quot]Defence Statement
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1/ [/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 but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)".

2/[/FONT] This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:

(a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

[FONT=&quot](b) This is a speculative serial litigant, known for issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]While the claim offers to "provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days of the service of the claim form", no such documents have been received.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot](c) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Particulars of Claim were extremely sparse and did not divulge sufficient detail nor did they contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot](d) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]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

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.”

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]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 £xxx for outstanding debt and damages.

[/FONT]
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 by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
[FONT=&quot](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.

[/FONT] 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.
[FONT=&quot](c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

8/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Civil Enforcement Limited 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.

[/FONT] 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.

[FONT=&quot]11/ 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.
[/FONT]
12/ The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If the [FONT=&quot]“Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)" is an[/FONT] employee then the Defendant suggests that he/she is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated xxxx 2017 are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsover.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
[FONT=&quot](a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on XXXX 2017[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.[/FONT]



Signed:
NAME


[FONT=&quot]DATE[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

If you have all the points in the linked examples then you can expect this now to die a death. Looks OK on a quick skim read but that's all I did - compare to the linked one and you will be fine as long as you submit this in time.

parist

Thank you Coupon-mad.

I hope I have covered accurately the points relevant to this particular case. I have checked and cross-checked several times.

Once I have formatted this with bargepoles format advice.

Do I just post the printed and signed Defence statement on its own as I have already completed MCOL?

Is the signed defence statement document sufficient without the need for a covering letter?

Coupon-mad

Yes it looks fine, needs no covering letter or defence form with it as long as the defence is signed, dated and headed up with the correct Claim Number & headings, names of parties, etc.

You could email it to the CCBC as a PDF, or post it with proof of posting from the PO Counter.

parist

Done!

Posted and the PDF was sent after 4pm yesterday and was acknowledged early today on MCOL.

Many thanks to you `Coupon-mad and the other forum posters for your support and invaluable guidance.

parist

Just checked MCOL to see how the case is going.

Excuse my ignorance but does anyone know what the last bit means?


"Date of service of 19/04/2017 notified on 22/05/2017 at Xxx"

Does that mean CEL was notified on 22/05/2017 ??

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 02/05/2017 at xxx
Your defence was received on 03/05/2017
Date of service of 19/04/2017 notified on 22/05/2017 at Xxxx