CEL County Court Claim form received

wanderer2426

I have taken my defence from Shahbaaz's post as our cases are the same and he followed the advice about taking out the bit about the ANPR on the sign and taking out the paragraph about no legitimate interest.


I hope I've done right in these instances and that the below is ok?




In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number:

---

Civil Enforcement Limited v

---

I am

---

the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle

---

. I currently reside at

---

.


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


1. The Claim Form issued on 11/10/2017 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 as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) 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 mentioned a possible £324.29 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. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.


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) It is believed the signage 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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 11th October 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




For those with more experience, does this seem ok to proceed with?


If so, do I just email to the email address quoted or do I need to do anything on the actual MCOL site too?

wanderer2426

One other concern I forgot to mention was that the sign does have the wording on it -


'Additional costs/recovery charges will be incurred if payment is not received within 28 days' so should I get rid of point 6 c (iv)?

wanderer2426

Could somebody please advise as to what I do for submission of defence letter? Do I just email it to the email address that was quoted and that's it or do I need to do anything on the MCOL site as well?

Redx

you date it , then you save as a pdf , and then print it out

you sign and date the bottom of the defence

you scan it back to your pc and save as a pdf

you email it as an attachment to an email to the CCBC , with name and MCOL ref in the header and name , address , MCOL reference etc in the main body and ask for it to be added to the file for this particular claim as your defence

you then phone the CCBC and ensure it gets added to your defence

do not use it on their website , so no to that question

wanderer2426

Thank you, any idea how long it takes for the questionnaire to then come through, only I'm going on holiday next week and don't want to miss any deadlines so am just trying to co-ordinate for when is best to email it.

wanderer2426

I haven't heard anything yet since sending my defence on 19/10/17, however today, I have just received a 'particulars of claim' document from CEL. They have obviously tried to backdate it, as it's dated 11/10/17 which is the date of the claim, however it was only received today, and I have kept the envelope with the postal stamp of 1/11/17 so it was clearly posted recently. Do I need to do anything about this and shouldn't they have sent this much earlier? I thought I had read a 14 day rule?

Coral87

I am reading around to prepare my defence, I have the same forms received, exact same dates of 11/10/2017 and 01/11/2017. I have acknowledged service already also

wanderer2426

That's what I'm worried about coral87, I have already submitted my defence which refers to 'vague particulars of claim' but I hadn't actually received the particulars which I didn't realise till they arrived today. I followed the advice at the time, unaware that the situation would change. I know they are out of time, after reading other threads, I think I need to complain but not sure whether to address the court or CEL or what to put? Can anyone point me in direction of what to do next?

Redx

read the recent LOC123 posts , she has waxed lyrical about it this week alone

its all free legal advice , why look a gift horse in the mouth ?

if the "very few" lawyers that are on here werent around , you would all receive little or no advice at all , she is one of the "few"

Loadsofchildren123

OP I have suggested following your comment on another thread that you write to the court. You had a go at the letter and I've amended it very slightly -here it is.
Send a copy to CEL and say at the bottom of the letter that you have sent them a copy.

Regarding Claim Form XXXXXXXX, I am writing to complain that the Claimant has deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim which were served separate to the claim form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4 (1)(b).

The Claim form was issued on 11th October, stating that the detailed Particulars of Claim would be provided to me within 14 days after service of the claim form.

The further Particulars of Claim and covering letter were sent under cover of on 1st November 2017. As such, according to Rule 6.3(b) they were served on the 2nd November 2017. However they were dated the 11th October 2017. These dates mean that my defence is therefore not due ue until 16th November 2017 (Rule 15.4(1)(a)).

The Claimant has made a poor attempt to conceal the actual date on which it served the further Particulars by backdating them by 21 days, together with the covering letter. This is clearly demonstrated by the post mark on the envelope they arrived in, which shows the date of posting as 1st Nov, a copy of which I have provided as evidence.
The Civil Procedure Rules are quite clear – under Rule 3.8 the court should apply the sanctions unless the Claimant has applied for relief under 3.9.

I cannot fathom any reason for the Claimant having backdated its further Particulars of Claim, other than to try to gain an advantage by making it appear that I have filed my defence late, or by confusing me into having to rush to file my defence prematurely. This is a serious matter and I ask that this is formally noted on the court file.

I believe that the court should either disallow the further Particulars of Claim as no R3.9 application has been made by Civil Enforcement Limited or I should be given the opportunity to amend my defence as they were late serving the Particulars of Claim and I mistakenly thought I was running out of time to file it. The court is asked to consider these matters under its inherent Rule 3 case management powers and to give directions.

This is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the Civil Procedure Rules and these sorts of blatant breaches should not be allowed because they prejudice Litigants in Person who are not versed in court procedures and the court rules. It is with some difficulty that I have understood the various obligations and time limits set out in the Civil Procedure Rules, as a Litigant in Person, whereas the commercial Claimant has no such excuse.