CEL defence

puredestiny

Lamilad wrote: »

Get rid of para 6 (d)

Is this relevant in your case? Did the parking event​ occur in the hours of darkness?

No, this was daylight. I will remove that paragraph thank you for pointing it out.

puredestiny

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Was it? I though the latest ones were signed ''Legal Representative'', in the more recent CEL cases. I suspect you have copied a fairly old one as I haven't seen this in 2017 examples, for the very good reason that it is pointless:

Search the forum for CEL defence and find a newer one from 2017. But check it for details, e.g. don't copy stuff about fees/tariffs if this was a free car park, and as Lamilad says, don't copy words about unlit signs unless it was dark on arrival.

If this is about an overstay, you should also mention at the start (without implying who was driving) that the car park and shops would have been extremely busy, it being just a few shopping days before Christmas. People would take longer to shop and make decisions, queues at the tills would have been much longer than other times of year, and finding a free parking space (and at the end, queuing to leave) would have been likely to have involved more than just ten minutes.

If it was an overstay of about 20 mins or less, I would also quote the BPA Grace Periods rules (again, easy to seach for).

The claim form is signed Civil Enforcement Ltd, but the letter before action is signed The legal team.

I am unsure how long the driver overstayed because the only time mentioned is time of issue 16:33. I know from messages exchanged with the driver's friend that coffee was arranged for 11:00. The hair appointment was for 13:00.

I will insert the paragraph you suggested and I should note that the leaving time of 16:33 is right bang on rush hour in that area too, so traffic would be horrendous.

Coupon-mad

but the letter before action is signed The legal team.

Irrelevant - and the draft you have shown us says the claim is dated March (it can't be). Honestly, I would do a search which takes less than 5 seconds, to find a newer CEL defence.

puredestiny

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Irrelevant - and the draft you have shown us says the claim is dated March (it can't be). Honestly, I would do a search which takes less than 5 seconds, to find a newer CEL defence.

Argh, I was using the information on the letter before action. My brain is fried by all this legal stuff. I'll do another search. Lucky I posted it on here for review. Gulp

puredestiny

I have updated the defence based on newer versions found. Hopefully this will be better. Any suggestions appreciated.

DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

I am __n, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle __. I currently reside at __.

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

1/ The Claim Form issued on the 12 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 “Civil Enforcement Limited (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/ With the date of the alleged visit being just days before Christmas, the car park and shops would have been extremely busy. People take longer to shop and make decisions, queues at the tills would be much longer than other times of year. Finding a free parking space upon entry and queuing to leave would have involved some additional time for the driver beyond the norm.

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

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.

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.

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. 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 £322.89 for outstanding debt and damages.

5/ 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. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

6/ 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.

7/ 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 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 12th June 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.

Coupon-mad

Yup, that will do! Scam over, once that is filed.

puredestiny

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yup, that will do! Scam over, once that is filed.

That is such a relief to hear. Two days spent on this, and I'll be glad to get back to work. Thank you so much for your help and suggestions. Hope to come back with some good news soon.

puredestiny

I have some good news.I wrote an email to the retail centre head office and today have a response as follows:

I am sorry to hear you have received a fine when visiting the centre. Are you able to give me the PCN number of the fine? I should be able to contact the company and request it be cancelled by using that set of numbers.

So, I forwarded the PCN and just this minute have received this email from the centre

Thanks for sending that over so quickly.I have sent them an email now and shall get in contact with you once I hear back

Question: Do I still file my defence statement?

Umkomaas

Do I still file my defence statement?

Absolutely.

Ordinarily I'd say there'd be a good chance of a cancellation, but with this being CEL and so far down the road, don't be surprised if they ignore the request and press on.

They are vengeful - when the Coop cancelled their contract with them, they went through their back catalogue of unpaid PCNs at Coop sites and issued mass court claims. As a final farewell salute, the sued 50 Coop employees whose car's were whitelisted and parked up every day for attending work.

That's what you're dealing with here.

puredestiny

Umkomaas wrote: »

Absolutely.

Ordinarily I'd say there'd be a good chance of a cancellation, but with this being CEL and so far down the road, don't be surprised if they ignore the request and press on.

They are vengeful - when the Coop cancelled their contract with them, they went through their back catalogue of unpaid PCNs at Coop sites and issued mass court claims. As a final farewell salute, the sued 50 Coop employees whose car's were whitelisted and parked up every day for attending work.

That's what you're dealing with here.

Ah, wow. Vultures. I'll file my defence today and keep the record of emails with the retail centre to add later if needed then. Thank you for clarifying that. Should I add to the defence that the centre has agreed to assist?

Well, lesson learned to take action on these immediately by contacting the retail centre first.