Court summons for civil enforcement ltd

Coupon-mad

eits88 wrote: »

Thanks Coupon, so this is after the questionnaire... Like a game of poker is it? They try to take it as far as they can and see if poor member of the public will crack and pay up this ridiculous sum.

So is WS something I need to be concerned about?

Yes but later on, in the Autumn.

Why not read bargepole's summary (linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2) of what happens when, so you are ready and prepared, and not surprised/shocked by any letter.

eits88

Yes I have read it and will do again until I've got this down.

I'm going to send a new version of my defence in 30 mins, I'd be really grateful for any feedback.

Thank you in advance.

eits88

Coupon, where in the defence script should I add the specifics of my case, the bit where you mentioned I should put something in about how a ticked was purchased before leaving the car park...?

eits88

How about this, I've added the bit about what happened at the beginning, removed "3"... Any feedback gratefully received, thank you.


In the County Court Business Centre
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited
V
DEFENDANT

Our car was parked inside a CEL car park where there the first 10 mins are free. While in there, our son was sick and vomited everywhere, and this caused a delay getting back to the car, approximately 7 minutes. When we got back to the car park a ticket was purchased from the machine, so the tariff paid undoubtedly covered our stay.

About a month or so later the first letter arrived from Civil Enforcement LTD, requesting an inflated and unreasonable payment. I responded by writing an "appeal", telling them exactly what happened. This was refused of course.

I, DEFENDANT, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 13th 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”.

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. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 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.

(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.


6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 [date]
(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.

9 The additional particulars of claim 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 Ltd but has since resigned. Mr. Cohen is therefore put to strict proof the capacity and authority he has in signing such statements.

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.

Signed
Date

Coupon-mad

Yes, that will be fine to email to the CCBC.

Print it off, set out with headings and set out using the font/line spacing as explained by bargepole for defences, and sign & date it and scan it/save it as a PDF.

DQ stage next - you would do well to bookmark some other CEL cases ahead of you in the process, go back 20 pages or so and you will find some.

eits88

Quick question, should I leaving in the point about not receiving the "letter before county court claim" even if it was actually received?

eits88

In fact I cannot even remember if I received this letter at all. How are the letters sent out, by registered post?

Quentin

eits88 wrote: »

Quick question, should I leaving in the point about not receiving the "letter before county court claim" even if it was actually received?

No. If you received it then no point lying about it!

Quentin

eits88 wrote: »

In fact I cannot even remember if I received this letter at all. How are the letters sent out, by registered post?

Unlikely.


Normal post is the norm

eits88

Have just emailed my defence to the court and will follow up with a phone call to ensure they received it. I guess I just sit tight now and wait for something to happen....?

I will keep this thread up to date with any further developments. Thank you to those who are helping with this, it is most appreciated.

Best,