Civil Enforcement Ltd; Particulars of Claim

parkpark123

Hi all,
I have had a letter from CEL informing me that their claim has been issued at the County Court Business Centre. They are asking for £305.35 for a parking fine from my car being parked in a hospital car park on 1.12.16.

I have read the NEWBIES section and many of the links provided there. I am building an idea of what to do but as there is such a vast amount of information could somebody please point me in the right direction as to what I need to do here?

As far as I can see it looks like I may well need to go to a hearing, and as long as I can be prepared I am willing to do this. However it it could be avoided of course that would be much preferred.

Any help would be much appreciated!

Sam

Redx

put CEL DEFENCE into the forum search box and select SHOW POSTS, then read all the results that pop up over the last 4 weeks, do what they did

and complain to PALS at the hospital and insist they cancel the charge too

The_Slithy_Tove

The £305 will have been hugely inflated by their various dodgy practices, and is easily disputed. Have you not received any other correspondence in the meantime? Any LBAs? CEL often send an LBA for a lesser amount, then send the ticket on another round of debt collection in order to add another £100 or so, and then send another LBA. If you have all such correspondence, it's something they won't want a judge seeing.

Lamilad

As far as I can see it looks like I may well need to go to a hearing

If you think that then clearly you haven't read any of the countless other CEL threads on this forum.

If you had you would know that they always discontinue against a well researched defence. Just make sure they don't know who was driving

Coupon-mad

Agreed - there are no hearings v CEL here. All stayed!

Sam, you need to simply read some other CEL defence threads. Go back maybe ten pages in the thread list and read all the ones you see about CEL defences/claims. You will see a pattern of a certain defence and you can copy the most relevant one.

Don't read other parking firms threads, only CEL ones, they are a certain type of animal with a certain defence that works.

parkpark123

Thanks so much for your prompt replies everyone, I have been a real dummy and only just found them!
That's reassuring that you seem to know CEL so well, I will do as you say. Yes I have had several letters and have kept them all. From CEL, then ZZPS, then Wright Hassall then CCBC. Had hoped it would all go away but it hasn't.
I was sent the CCBC letter on 13th June with 14 days to take action so I need to follow the MCOL guide right? Then search CEL DEFENSE to work out what to do next?

parkpark123

Also are you advising that complaining to the hospital will help?

Redx

yes to all those questions

but a reserved yes to the hospital question, it is likely that they will say its too late now that a court case has been opened , BUT you should still get them to put a letter in writing stating that as landowner they do not want court action and would have cancelled it if they had known

one of your main failings was in NOT CONTACTING pals at the hospital , because it was the trust that engaged the p@rasites

your main focus now is making sure you have acknowledged this claim TODAY on the MCOL website and then searching for those other recent (june 2017) CEL defences and adapt one for yourself

should take you less than half an hour to do all the above , then post the draft defence on here for checking

parkpark123

Thank you so much, will post back soon.

parkpark123

Draft as follows, copied and adapted from another recent case on here:

---

In the County Court Business Centre

Claim Number:
Between: Civil Enforcement Limited v

---

Defence Statement

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

1. The Claim Form issued on the 14th December 2016 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. It is submitted that neither the Claim form or additional particulars of claim meet the requirements of practice directions and civil procedures.

3. The Defendant received no compliant ‘Letter before Court Claim’, under the practice Direction.

4. The Claimant is a serial litigant whose business model is to file large numbers of spurious claims and pressure defendants into paying up. In a preliminary hearing of several cases in Bristol, HHJ Denayer expressed his concern at the way Civil Enforcement Limited were conducting their cases and described correspondence issued by them as a disgrace.

5. The additional particulars of claim which are dated the 13th June 2017 but arrived much later are signed purportedly by Ashley Cohen. Mr Cohen was reported to sign off witness statements under London Councils POPLA on behalf of Landowners, for CEL POPLA cases falsely stating authority. It is submitted that he is a director of another company, Bemrose Mobile Limited which supplies the pay by phone payment methods for parking. Mr Cohen was a former director of Creative Contracts Limited but has since resigned. Me Cohen is therefore put to strict proof the capacity and authority he has in signing such statements.

6. 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.

7. CEL suggests that Beavis sets a precedent. This is only true if the facts of the case are similar. In this case, none of the exceptions to disengage the penalty apply.

8. 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.

9. 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 date 13 June 2017 are templates, so it is not credible that £50 ‘legal costs’ were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

10. The Claimant is a serial abuser of the courts, filing many thousands of claims in the last few years. However, it is widely reported that the Claimant fails to turn up to defended cases, wasting both the Court’s and the Defendant’s time.

11. In the event the claim progresses, then as an unrepresented litigant in person, I reserve the right to alter, vary and add to this defence or reply to any further particulars of claim/documents the Claimant may provide.

I confirm that the above facts contained in this Defence statement are true.

Signed:

Name:

Date:

---

I understand I need to send this as PDF in a particular form, signed and scanned etc. and I can look that up.

If sending via email, what addresses do I send it to and what do I do on the MCOL account?

Thanks!

Redx

the email address should be on the forms you received and is also on the MCOL website too (yes its that simple)

lamilad recently told somebody else how to do all of this in a recent post of his, possibly a CEL thread, so read a few more , especially his posts

on the MCOL site you are merely acknowledging that you are defending the claim , nothing more , certainly DO NOT write anything in the defence box

its login, acknowledge, make a note of any login password etc, job done

DO NOT send the above claim in yet until its been checked (as long as its not 33 days after the claim form was sent - but do not miss the court deadline at all)

check what you have written so far is accurate , as its a statement of truth to a judge !!

so was the claim signed by ASHLEY COHEN ?

or "THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LEGAL TEAM" ?

or someone else (or entity ) ?

if you were not the driver, there should be a paragraph clearly stating that, otherwise leave that out

and remove your name , these companies read forums like this one

contact the MSE admin staff and get a username change to something more obscure too