Claim form

Coupon-mad

I'm not sure that was copied from a recent CEL defence. It doesn't read specifically enough, they normally start by talking about who signed the claim form.

Ronnie09

really hoping I have got this correct now compared it to a thread a couple of months ago.
thanks for everyones help ive really been stressing about this, does this look ok?


Claim Number: *********

Civil Enforcement Ltd v *********

Statement of Defence

I am************ defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

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

The Claim Form issued on the 08TH June 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"”.


1/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:

(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, no letters or correspondence has been received apart from the Claim notification itself and the Schedule of Information, which followed.

(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The initial County Court Claim Form only contains the claimants name, address and amounts of money identified as debt and damages, with a notice that detailed particulars will be provided within 14 days.

(c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information:
1. The defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
2. The VRN.
3. The date and time of the alleged incident.
4. Car park name.
5. Outstanding amount and break down of costs.

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.

2/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.

3/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.”

4/This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied 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 license to park free. None of this applies in this material case.


5/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.

(b) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) 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.

(c) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

(d) It is believed the terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time).

(e) 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.

(f) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.


6/ POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver has not been evidenced and a registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. In cases where a keeper is deemed liable, where compliant documentation was served, the sum pursued cannot exceed the original parking charge, only if adequately drawn to the attention of drivers on any signage.


7/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) No grace period was allowed.

(b) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.

(c) The sum pursued exceeds £100.

(d) There is/was no compliant landowner contract.

(e) The charge is not based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss (a condition at the time).


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:

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.


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 claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. it is not credible that £50.00 legal costs were incurred so the Claimant is put to strict proof it has. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.


12/ In the Beavis case the £85 was deemed the 'quid pro quo' for the license, granted to park free for two hours and there was no quantified loss. Not so in this case where it is believed the location is one with a small tariff after a grace period.


13/ If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to unlit signage) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (the tariff) where any sum pursued for breach must still relate to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

* Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on 08th June 2017.


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.

In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

Regards

Miss ************

Coupon-mad

That's better - nearly there - and it relates more to CEL (as long as the claim form was signed by ''Claimant's Legal Representative'' with no name of a solicitor).

A typo here, should be licence (the noun spelling ends 'ce', this is not the verb which ends 'se' in the UK):

12/ In the Beavis case the £85 was deemed the 'quid pro quo' for the licence [STRIKE]license[/STRIKE], granted ...

More of an issue are these parts which talk about your case involving a tariff (pay and display). But you said it earlier it wasn't, and if it isn't a pay & display car park you can't talk about a tariff or fee.

to park free for two hours and there was no quantified loss. Not so in this case where it is believed the location is one with a small tariff after a grace period.

13/ If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to unlit signage) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (the tariff) where any sum pursued for breach must still relate to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Ronnie09

Claim Number: **********

Civil Enforcement Ltd v ********

Statement of Defence

I am ********** defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

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

The Claim Form issued on the 08TH June 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"”.


1/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:

(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, no letters or correspondence has been received apart from the Claim notification itself and the Schedule of Information, which followed.

(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The initial County Court Claim Form only contains the claimants name, address and amounts of money identified as debt and damages, with a notice that detailed particulars will be provided within 14 days.

(c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information:
1. The defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
2. The VRN.
3. The date and time of the alleged incident.
4. Car park name.
5. Outstanding amount and break down of costs.

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.

2/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.

3/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.”

4/This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied 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 license to park free. None of this applies in this material case.


5/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.

(b) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) 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.

(c) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

(d) It is believed the terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time).

(e) 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.

(f) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.


6/ POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver has not been evidenced and a registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. In cases where a keeper is deemed liable, where compliant documentation was served, the sum pursued cannot exceed the original parking charge, only if adequately drawn to the attention of drivers on any signage.


7/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) No grace period was allowed.

(b) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.

(c) The sum pursued exceeds £100.

(d) There is/was no compliant landowner contract.

(e) The charge is not based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss (a condition at the time).


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:

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.


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 claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. it is not credible that £50.00 legal costs were incurred so the Claimant is put to strict proof it has. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.


12/ In the Beavis case the £85 was deemed the 'quid pro quo' for the licence, granted to park free for two hours and there was no quantified loss.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

* Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on 08th June 2017.


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.

In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

Regards

Miss ******************

Ronnie09

thank u coupon-mad for making me aware of these
I have deleted #13 should I delete #12 to?? not sure it makes sense now I've edited that part (12)
Yes it wasn't a tariff it was a camera filming me goin in and coming out and
yep it was signed claimants legal representatives

Coupon-mad

Good point, remove #12 completely.

Then email it to the CCBC as a signed, dated PDF defence. Make sure the claim number is in the subject line of course. Don;t use MCOL to upload a defence as it gets chewed up and the formatting disappears.

Ronnie09

Hey so the 28 days was over for them to respond to my defence and now a week after the deadline I have received a letter saying : notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track. Inside it's asking me to do mediation, Wot Do I respond to this ???

Coupon-mad

Same as all the other people who are at the same stage - search the forum for 'allocation' and you will find other CEL threads.

Ronnie09

Ok I have read through, but I don't understand it, they have gone over the 28days, the acknowledgement letter I received clearly states that the claimant must contact the court within 28days after receiving a copy of my defence and after that period had elapsed the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take is to apply to a judge for an order lifteing the stay.

Coupon-mad

They probably did, the weeks of delay will be at CCBC.

This is an easy stage already fully explained by bargepole in the NEWBIES thread post #2.