County Court Acknowledgement of service

Gannet123

Hi,

I'm looking for some advice and guidance please.

I received a parking fine in June 2017 .. I appealed this at the time as I was working for a charity and was discussing a family with a volunteer in Costa. I stayed about 20 minutes over the time.
I didn't receive an POPLA code after my appeal and then I got the Wright Hassel notifications to which I responded to using these forums to submit my response. Eventually in November 2017 they said they were passing over to Civil Enforcement if I didn't pay within 14 days.

All had gone very quiet until today when I received a claim form from Northampton County Court saying that I now owed £329.31. I have gone online to request more time/ defend all or part of this claim but I'm not sure whether I should defend ALL or PART of this claim. Does anyone have any experience of offering them a payoff of £100 quid or so? Or should I use the templates on here to defend all ?

Redx

you should acknowledge online AFTER reading post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread , especially the BARGEPOLE posts

there are plenty of CEL court case threads on here you can read, plus an example CEL generic defence for you to use as a starter on your defence draft

dont read anything older than 18 months , preferably stuff in the last 6 months

which idiot told you it is a "fine" , its definitely NOT a fine , its actually an invoice for an alleged unpaid contractual service

Gannet123

I've really sorry - I can't seem to navigate to Post number 2. There only seems to be one post of the newbies bit with tons of replies.

As you can tell I've not used in a forum before!

Coupon-mad

If you look at the NEWBIES thread, the post numbers are top right, like there are here in your thread. e.g. my reply to you here is #4.

Now go back to the NEWBIES thread, scroll past the long first post about appeals, and read post #2 all about court stage. There is even a walk through the AOS, in pictorial format, and you dispute ALL of the claim.

Does anyone have any experience of offering them a payoff of £100 quid or so?

No point! Even if you lost your defended case, you would only be told by a Judge to pay about £160. So fight!

We win pretty much 100% of cases we assist with - all four in small claims court won today! That's normal for MSE here.

Gannet123

Thank you so much - I'll keep you posted!!

More help will be required from you guys once i start drafting my defence, I'm sure.

Well done for all the good work you're doing!
Are some of these charges overturned at the defence stage before it gets to court?

Redx

yes, that can happen a lot once they realise you are not keeling over and wimping out

Coupon-mad

Funnily enough - YES and Civil Enforcement (CEL) are one who fold without a hearing!

No offering CEL money, now! This will likely all be over by July, look how easy this is, every time, on this forum:

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

Here's another one ahead of you in this game:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5640955

Learn how to search the forum and find other CEL defences and copy from them, you will see CEL fold as soon as they see a strong defence, which can be pretty generic. You are lucky yours is CEL, this is likely to be easy.

Gannet123

Hi,

Would you possibly be able to look over my defence and see what you think? I have used a mixture of relevant ones..

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXX
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v XXXXX

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 30 May 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.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. 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.


(c) The Particulars of Claim were extremely sparse and did not divulge sufficient detail nor did they contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

(d) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.


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 £329.21 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 XXX 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 XXXX.
(b) 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

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.

Coupon-mad

Yes, that has always done the trick so far, so we would expect it to cause CEL to skulk away again!

Gannet123

Hi,

I just wanted to share with you that I had a letter from the county court on the 20th June saying that if i don't hear anything within 28 days, assume the claim has been stayed.
I'm now assuming that that is indeed the case. Thank you so much for all your help and support. You guys are doing a great job

DoaM

Ring the court in the morning to confirm.