Help with County Court Claim!!

Redx

as above , stop copying and pasting from word , its not an option

as for lack of details in any POC , read this CEL defence which says so

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

WelshLass

Hi guys I've read through a lot of different posts and all of the cel defences seem to be very similar, I've edited this for my dates etc,
Could you take a look and see what you think, I've not added the Mr cohen paragraph.....should I wait and see if this comes through the door?


In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXXXX
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited
V
XXXXXXXXXXX
I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, 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 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”.
2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol - as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017. 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’ sent to me, 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 – which are the ticket relates to, what land the car was parked on, 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. These documents and the ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct.
e.The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and 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. Such a notice was not 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.
The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity at any point to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice entitled “Parking Charge Notice” which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.
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.
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. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage 'contract', 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 was 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 neither known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
iiii. 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 Ltd 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 10th October 2017.
b Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste ‘Particulars of claim’ which ignore the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
c Failed to issue a compliant notice to keeper within 14 days under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 such that Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
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 that the facts contained in the Defence Statement are true.

WelshLass

Hi all, anyone think the above is okay?

Coupon-mad

Yes but presumably you've also been reading all the other CEL defence cases around right now (as you certainly should - bookmark them all and follow them too) and have sussed to wait for the particulars of claim, IF the claim form says they are ''to follow''? Does it?

WelshLass

Yes I've read lots of other posts from CEL and yes my Claim form does say the particulars are to follow in 14 days , so mine should be with me by Tuesday 24th

Lamilad

WelshLass wrote: »

Yes I've read lots of other posts from CEL and yes my Claim form does say the particulars are to follow in 14 days , so mine should be with me by Tuesday 24th

Bear in mind that's 14 days from service not issue. Service being 5 days after issue.

WelshLass

Ahh right so more like the 30th then, thanks Lami

WelshLass

Hey guys well I've had my particulars of Claim through today and they are within the 14 days
There is a covering setting out the date and time of going in and going out and what date it is and car park
Then a 9 bullet point particulars setting out case law etc
Relying on - Vine vs Waltham Forest and
ParkingEye vs Beavis
Then a schedule of terms which state what the summary of terms are.
All this is signed by Ashley Cohen
So I've been reading all the other CEL threads daily and can see what I should be doing if I have received no poc but now I have and they're in time should I be cracking on with my defence?
Is the one above still ok? Should I be adding anything to it or leaving it as it is?
Ta WL

WelshLass

Anyone any thoughts? Should I send them a letter saying the particulars are still really scant?
Should I Ask them for photos and say
That the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the pre action Protocol which appply Weren't covered?

KeithP

Have a read of this very new thread:

CEL claims general advice