More civil enforcement woes

Redx

and edit your posts please, remember , [hint] the words "ME , MYSELF and I" are to be avoided

fineandandy

hi all please enclosed draft defence statement for critique by your good selves

inc articular can someone clarify that the section 3 regarding to freedoms etc is worded correctly it doesn't seem to read right even though many have copied and used it particularly the absent such bit.

also is the fact that a valid ticket is in possession raised in the right section at 2/D(f) i think everything else is worded correctly although i guess could have been expanded on in places
all feed back graciously received
thank you very much for all your help

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number XXX
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v XXX

Defence Statement

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

1/ The Claim Form issued on the ********* 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 such this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge invoice can only be raised 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, despite requests for further information.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The poorly constructed and mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention detail nor photographs.
(c) The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.
(d) A ‘Schedule of Information’ sent by the Claimant was sparse of detailed information:
1. The defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
2. The Vehicle Registration Number.
3. The date and time of the alleged incident.
4. Car park name.
5. Outstanding amount and identification of some fees.
6. A section entitled ‘Summary of terms’ outlines a contradictory tariff rate as per signage and states that the parking charge cut off time is 18;30 even though their charges are outlined elsewhere in the invoice as being up to and including 20:34.

It also does not detail:
a. Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
b. Proof of the actual vehicle located there at the alleged time.
c. Photographic proof that the car was actually parked.
d. The vehicle type and colour.
e. Why the charges may have arisen.

f. Despite being offered photographic proof of the existence of a valid ticket that covers parking time up to and beyond the legal charge period stated on the signage. It has still not been made clear to the Defendant why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; and therefore cannot be considered a fair exchange of information.

3/ The claimant has not issued a legal 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.

4/ 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 , is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. Neither any signage, nor the Notice to Keeper, mentioned a possible £***.** (inc court fees) for outstanding debt and damages which the claimant is now demanding.

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.

6/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) 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.
(b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(c) 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 an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(d) 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.

7/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

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:
The Claimant has no 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 charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirms that the penalty rule is still 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.

12/ 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 dated ***** 2017 are templates, so it is not credible that £40 ‘legal costs’ were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

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 *****2017.
(b) failed to respond to an email (except for an automated email acknowledgement) from the Defendant dated ******** 2016 appealing the original PCN, requesting further information and details of the their claim.
(c) failed to provide a POPLA code so that the matter could be referred for their decision (in accordance with BPA AOS Code of Practice 22.12) .
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 believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
M