Civil enforcement ltd

Chelle2296

Is this any use at all mostly copied and pasted. Thanks (edited)

Here is my draft defence:

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited v ___

Defence!Statement

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 the 10/10/2017 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, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £323.57 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) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(iii) 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.
(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. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.!

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 10 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
Date

Redx

please edit your comments in the last post

remember what they say on police programmes

"anything you say may be used against you in a court of law"

you are innocent until PROVED guilty

the driver may or may not have erred , but even if they did they may have had the right to overstay , possibly by up to 21 minutes , look up the BPA CoP grace periods , clause #13

was this alleged overstay less than 21 minutes ? if yes , how many ?

plus signage is usually poor and poorly lit, another defence point

Chelle2296

I'm really not sure I would say possibly over 21m definitely not over 30m husband never kept no letters. There was definitely no lighting around signage and it was dark.

Redx

if no signs were seen or obvious then no contract was formed

Lord Dennings red hand rule , blah blah

CEL fail on all kinds of issues , especially signage

and edit post #1 too, the opening statement says too much

THE DRIVER may have erred ...................

THE KEEPER received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)back in February

nobody received a "fine"

there are 4 words we ban on here (hint)

"ME , MYSELF and I" and "fine"

fatal words to use

the correct words are in capitals above

Chelle2296

The sign entering car park is way above head height then inside car park which is at back of shops no lighting at all. When the driver received first letter they did go in subway and tell a employee who said to ignore it.

Chelle2296

Do you think this template is a good start? Or do I need to add to it? I do intend to fill all parts in adnadjust dates and amounts once I get it to printing and PDF stage. Thanks

Redx

that employee is a fool , probably on 50p an hour and no idea about contract law, the driver was "fobbed off"

if this court claim was dated this month then all the paperwork you say is missing should have come with it under the new protocols

it sounds like the claimant has failed to provide the paperwork and so failed the new protocols

this needs adding into your defence (others are in a similar position)

yes it seems to be a good start but there is a lot that may need amending or adding , so stop rushing

you have 28 days to get this right , its not like its due in tomorrow

now please edit post #1 comments asap

Redx

post #1 looks ok now , in future be careful what you write and how you write it

if it says me , myself , I , my husband , my wife etc then ask yourself what would be better and more ambiguous , no names , no pack drill

now have a read of this recent CEL defence that starts with those new protocols

perhaps adapt it if its a better fit with less work

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5729157

you would have to remove anything that says the keeper was 150 miles away etc (if its in there)

Chelle2296

Have edited the first post many thanks, will slow down now lol. Yes received today and dated 10/10/17.

Chelle2296

Fab your a star i will look at this right now thanks