We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
County Court Claim from CEL OCT 17
Corhenry
Posts: 2 Newbie
Hi all,
I've read acres of posts about these guys and the Newbies post from Coupon Mad.
Background:
The first I'd heard of a parking fine was when I received letters from ZZPS (I think) and finally from CEL. Ignored most of them but the last letter I received I wrote to CEL requesting proof of fine as had not previously received any proof/picture, etc.
Unsurprisingly, heard nothing back. My problem is that I have nothing to defend on the claim as I don't know what I've done wrong!
I've completed the AOS and am getting my defence together (because I have nothing better to do with my Saturday!!)
I've taken a template from a previous thread that sounded similar to my case. I would hugely appreciate some thoughts and advice on this defence.
----
1/ 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. None of this applies in this material case.
2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents only contain two pieces of individual information: the name of the defendant and the name of the car park. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number, but no date of event, no details, no VRN, no contravention nor photographs.
(c) The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - what the date of the parking event was, what the vehicle was, why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
3/ POFA 2012 breach - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver from three years ago has not been evidenced and a registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. In cases where a keeper is deemed liable, where compliant documentation was served, the sum pursued cannot exceed the original parking charge, only if adequately drawn to the attention of drivers on any signage.
4/ 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 claim. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.
5/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any 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 Claim Form issued on 09 October 2017
(b) failed to provide Particulars of Claim within 14 days of the date of service of that Claim Form, thus making it impossible for the Defendant to prepare any form of defence; and
(c) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant requesting further information and details of the claim
In the circumstances, the Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospects of success.
The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.
I've read acres of posts about these guys and the Newbies post from Coupon Mad.
Background:
The first I'd heard of a parking fine was when I received letters from ZZPS (I think) and finally from CEL. Ignored most of them but the last letter I received I wrote to CEL requesting proof of fine as had not previously received any proof/picture, etc.
Unsurprisingly, heard nothing back. My problem is that I have nothing to defend on the claim as I don't know what I've done wrong!
I've completed the AOS and am getting my defence together (because I have nothing better to do with my Saturday!!)
I've taken a template from a previous thread that sounded similar to my case. I would hugely appreciate some thoughts and advice on this defence.
----
1/ 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. None of this applies in this material case.
2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents only contain two pieces of individual information: the name of the defendant and the name of the car park. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number, but no date of event, no details, no VRN, no contravention nor photographs.
(c) The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - what the date of the parking event was, what the vehicle was, why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
3/ POFA 2012 breach - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver from three years ago has not been evidenced and a registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. In cases where a keeper is deemed liable, where compliant documentation was served, the sum pursued cannot exceed the original parking charge, only if adequately drawn to the attention of drivers on any signage.
4/ 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 claim. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.
5/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any 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 Claim Form issued on 09 October 2017
(b) failed to provide Particulars of Claim within 14 days of the date of service of that Claim Form, thus making it impossible for the Defendant to prepare any form of defence; and
(c) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant requesting further information and details of the claim
In the circumstances, the Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospects of success.
The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.
0
Comments
-
try adapting this one , its recent and has all the new protocols in it
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/57291570 -
Thanks Redx. Greatly appreciated. Best wishes!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards