CEL Claim Form Received

blacksheep9

Good Afternoon,


I like many have received a CCBC claim form from CEL (Civil Enforcement Ltd).


Allegedly a vehicle of which I am the named driver overstayed at a retail park, I received a PCN and ignored, I then received letters from ZZPS and Wright Hassall Solicitors before the claim form landed on my door mat, the claim date is 12th June and I have already submitted AOS on the MCOL website and indicated I intend to defend of this claim.


I know there is a wealth of knowledge on this forum and I intend to draft a defence for critique, I would be most grateful if members would kindly assist me, below are details of the claim if you require any more info then please let me know.


Alleged offence - My vehicle was captured on ANPR in a car park for 3hrs 47mins when there is a maxiumum 3 hours parking limit. (I was 150miles away when the incident occurred but the vehicle in question was not with me and could have been used by other persons)


Incident date : 20/10/2016 - PCN issue date: 14/11/2016


Standard letters received from Wright Hassall et al


Claim form signed: Civil Enforcement Limited


Total amount claimed is: £323.00


Will the standard defence hopefully see these people off and am I best emailing the CCBC my defence rather than into MCOL?


Thanks in advance

Redx

hopefully yes it might see them off , if its based on similar recent CEL court claim threads posted on here over the last 2 months

just find one of those and adapt it to suit, then post it on herte for critique , minus personal info and references

yes its best to email it as a pdf attachment to CCBC at Northampton, lamilad recently posted details on exactly how to do this, so search his posts too

and make sure you have read and understood post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread

blacksheep9

Thanks for the speedy reply, he is my first draft defence and I would be grateful of anything I might have missed, included that I shouldn't have :




In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: xxxxxxx

Claimant: xxxxxxxx

Defendant: xxxxxxxx




Defence Statement


I, xxxxxxxx, 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 xxxxxx 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, and were posted to a non-existent address. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was, nor who they are claiming against; 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 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.

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) 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 £323 for outstanding debt and damages.

4. 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

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.
5.i. This case can be distinguished further from Beavis as another rationale in that judgement stated it was fair to uphold the judgement on the basis that if one was parking on a council street at the same time then they could reasonably expect to pay a Penalty Charge Notice. As the contravention happed at 8:41pm, it was not during the hours whereby a council would issue a PCN.

6. 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.

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. 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 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 xxxxxx



(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.





xxxxxxxxxx



Date

Coupon-mad

I would remove 5.1 because it doesn't help, and isn't true either (ask anyone in certain cities!).

And here, I would add that you were not driving and were miles away:

3. 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. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not the driver, cannot be presumed to have been the driver, have no legal responsibility to name the driver to any private parking firm, and can evidence that I was 150 miles away on the material date.

blacksheep9

Excellent thanks Coupon-mad

blacksheep9

Quick query that I hope somebody can help on, I have emailed my defence to CCBC but what do I write in the defence particulars on the MCOL site, do I just state something along the lines of 'defence emailed' ? or leave blank or write something specific


Did search for the above but cant seem to find anything?

blacksheep9

Any help on the above greatly appreciated?

Lamilad

what do I write in the defence particulars on the MCOL site, do I just state something along the lines of 'defence emailed' ? or leave blank or write something specific

If you've emailed your defence you don't do anything on MCOL. Just ring the court to confirm they've received your email