Civil Enforcement Limited Country Court Claim Form

TimTimTimm

Hi,

I have been sent a Claim form from Civil Enforcement Limited after parking and paying for my parking over the phone and later receiving a PCN which I (now know) wrongly e-mailed them about to try and resolve the issue.

In the e-mail I sent I told them I had parked (whoops) and used their phone service but had not been charged, so if they needed to do that I can correct any details their phone service may have gotten incorrect due to my accent. Naturally they replied saying they would reply in 28 days after which the fine increased and they didnt send anything to help resolve it. As they didnt seem interested in resolving it that is when I then ignored the increasingly large fines they sent and now I have this claim form.

I read the information on this forum and have copied what looks like a standard response for the defence.

I was just wondering if it was worth adding to the defense that I had tried to contact them and had tried to pay the parkling costs at the time but it had not gone through and i have the phone records of my call to the number for that location? Or whether the boiler plate defence would be safest?

I am unsure if this charge is due to me visiting and paying the automated service and then returning with the hour or the initial parking as this parking was done in August last year.

I really just want this to go away at this point.

Here is the copied defence from here with some tweaks for my case:

Claim Number ***
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v ***
Defence Statement

I 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 08 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. 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 £325.85 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.

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 8 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.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*Should I have this section and remove the not obvious signs part?_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
10. The Claimant did not provide the Defendant with details of the call to pay the parking ticket when asked and refused to directly resolve what seems to be an error in data collection on the part of the automated service that is in use. Even when provided with information by the Defendant about the call that was made to pay the parking ticket at the time of parking.
_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed:
Date 02- 07-2017


Apologies if I have misunderstood anything, this is all new to me.

Coupon-mad

I was just wondering if it was worth adding to the defense that I had tried to contact them and had tried to pay the parking costs at the time but it had not gone through and i have the phone records of my call to the number for that location?

I would add that near the start, for context and to give you that point to build on later, if needed.

TimTimTimm

Thanks, I will move that to near the top.

After that would you say it is all good to email to the court?

TimTimTimm

I have to submit this tonight as I left this a little late due to work commitments.

It is all set up and ready to go, if anyone can confirm for me that this is looking like the right sort of thing, it would be really appreciated. This stuff is a bit scary.

TimTimTimm

I have changed it up a bit and tried to be more clear.
I have read through all the points and looked over similar defences. I think I understand everything here.

I am going to use the online form to submit this defence soon.
If there is anything very wrong, please let me know.

I really dont want these horrible people to win.

---

Claim Number
Between: Civil Enforcement Limited v
Defence Statement
I deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
1. The Claimant did not provide the Defendant with details of the call made by the defendant to pay the parking ticket when asked and would not directly resolve what seems to be an error in data collection on the part of the automated phone service that is in use which led to the Defendant not being charged for parking.
The details provided by the Defendant include a breakdown of the steps went through when making a call to register for parking in that location at that time and offered the means to correct any details that may have been recorded wrong by the automated service to allow for the proper charge to be taken. This was met with an automated response from the Claimant saying a response would take 28 days. This time frame takes the claim past the minimum time for payment at which point the Claimant asks for a larger sum to be paid. The response that was received was through the post and a reply was further responses were not received after a response to that letter.

2. The Claim Form issued on the 08 June 2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not filed correctly under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by Civil Enforcement Limited - “Claimant’s Legal Representative”.
3. 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.
4. The Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 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 arbitrarily add another sum to the requested amount as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £325.85 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 administrative costs' were incurred

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. 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. 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.
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 8 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.

Signed:
Date 02-07-2017

TimTimTimm

I posted earlier about a defence that I was submitting due to being harassed by Civil Enforcement Limited.

Since then, I have received a "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the small claims track". Does this mean I will have to go to court? I am very uncertain what this means for the situation or if there is anything important I should do at this stage.

From reading around I understand that I should probably not do the mediation and simply pass my address and a chosen claims court?

All the best,
Nick

Umkomaas

All the stages of a small claim are outlined in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky. Do please use that as your guide for the future. It will explain all the 'what comes next' so you are prepared for each stage.

Coupon-mad

TimTimTimm wrote: »

I posted earlier about a defence that I was submitting due to being harassed by Civil Enforcement Limited.

Since then, I have received a "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the small claims track". Does this mean I will have to go to court? I am very uncertain what this means for the situation or if there is anything important I should do at this stage.

Same as all other CEL cases, read a few, same stage as you, all the same. So bored with CEL cases all the same:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5696166

It's a form. Same as everyone gets.

It's easier an quicker for you to follow other CEL threads than for us to have to repeat ourselves every time the next person says they have the Notice of Proposed Allocation to the small claims track, and they ask yet again, if that means they will be going to a hearing. Same thing every week on here - just want to encourage you to read other CEL threads first.

TimTimTimm

Hi,

I have just received my notice of allocation to the small claims court where it is asking for me to send in the witness statements.

In the newbies thread it lists a lot of things to include for different circumstances:

(a) a copy of the Beavis case sign as a comparison to show how awful the small print sign was in yours case
(b) photos proving the scarce and illegible small print signs in your case, a view showing the lack of entrance signs, etc.
(c) a video of how it looks from a car is good evidence! You can get a passenger to hold a camera or phone and record the lack of signs seen to the point of parking.
(d) a copy of Schedule 4 of the POFA - there is a link to it in post #1 above. The Judge will NOT have this to hand & is unlikely to be familiar with it. This is only applicable if you are defending as keeper.
(e) a copy of Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability' if defending as keeper.
(f) a copy of your lease or tenancy agreement if this is an 'own space' or 'block of flats' dispute where YOU have primacy of contract.
(g) the case transcripts that support your argument (get them from the Parking Prankster's case law page), e.g. if arguing prohibitive 'forbidding parking' signs which offer no contract a driver can accept, you need PCM v Bull; if arguing that this is a residential space where the tenant/leaseholder has already been granted (impliedly or explicitly) the right to park or unload you need Jopson v Home Guard (a persuasive Appeal case heard by a Senior Circuit Judge) and PACE v Mr N, etc.
(h) the IPC or BPA Code of practice, where it supports your case (e.g. the grace periods section 13 of the CoP in a BPA few minutes' 'overstay' claim).
(i) a Pay & Display ticket if you have it in such a case, e.g. if arguing it was displayed. DO NOT ARGUE 'no loss'!

In my case the problem happened when I phoned them to pay the ticket over a number from the sign so I think a lot of this doesn't apply. And I had (stupidly) e-mailed them after the PCN first came to try and resolve the problem by offering to correct any details that might not have been collected correctly over the automated phone system. As such, I don't think I can argue a lack of signs.

Would it be best to simply include (g), (h), the e-mails (which they didnt respond to for 28 days and even then by post poorly asking for a larger sum!) and a break down of the events that have happened?

I also don't have access to the place where I parked anymore as I have moved to the other side of the country so it will be difficult to physically get evidence. (but they have still managed to get the hearing back where I used to live despite my request for it to be where I currently live....)

Loadsofchildren123

Which address did you put on the DQ form? You could try writing to the court to explain about your move and ask for it to be transferred to your local court? You need to do it ASAP.

You are right - only include stuff in your statement that ties into your defence. The WS is the facts to back up your defence. So tell your story as it happened - you drove in, parked, followed payment instructions, you were unaware payment had not gone through, you offered as soon as you knew and are still willing to pay the charge you should have paid for the parking (did you not receive any notification that payment had failed?). And exhibit your mobile phone bill extract showing that you had called the payment line.