2 x Claim Form Civil Enforcement Ltd

Loadsofchildren123

Eaglehawk wrote: »

Hi I have drafted the letter to complain about late PoCs and have tried to add a paragraph about the contract not being included, i would be grateful if someone could read it over. Should i post one to the court and one to CEL, do i need to state in the one to the court that i have sent one to cel? Also I know you can email your defence to the court could I email this as well?

Dear XXXXX

Claim number [xxxxxxx]

I am writing to draw to your attention 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 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 1st Nov. As such, according to Rule 6.3(b) they were served on 3rd Nov, However, they were dated the 11th October. which means that my defence is therefore not due until the 17th November (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. Consent to the late service is not something which is in my gift to give pursuant to Rule 3.8, and it is a matter for the court to determine, with the obligation being on the Claimant to apply under Rule 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.



The usual rule when a Claimant sues under a contract is that it must provide a copy of that contract (Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.3(1)). Claimants in proceedings issued via MCOL are exempt from this (Practice Direction 7E paragraph 5.2A) except when separate Particulars of Claim are served, as is the case in this Claim. It is stated that a claimant suing under a contract must provide a copy of the contract with the Claim Practice Directions 16b para 7.3 However this does not apply to MCOL claims and the exemption is contained in Practice Directions 7E para 5.2A. However this exemption does not apply if separate PoCs are served as stated in Practice Directions 7E para 5.2A. Therefore the Claimant is also in breach of this aspect of the CPR because it has failed to provide the contract with the Particulars. The absence of the contract is a serious bar to me providing a proper defence to the claim (the Claimant should have produced a copy of it in the pre-action phase of the proceedings, against both the new Protocol for Debt Claims and the pre-existing Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct).

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.

Yours Faithfully

Some suggestions. My fault for you getting the service date wrong - it's the 2nd business day after posting, not the 1st.

Eaglehawk

Thankyou for reading over the letter making relevant suggestions (I didn’t do a good job including the excluded contract section) I have corrected it as suggested and will post it off , for the court letter can I email it as a PDF or would it be better posted?


Dear XXXXX

Claim number [xxxxxxx]

I am writing to draw to your attention 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 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 1st Nov. As such, according to Rule 6.3(b) they were served on 3rd Nov, However, they were dated the 11th October. which means that my defence is therefore not due until the 17th November (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. Consent to the late service is not something which is in my gift to give pursuant to Rule 3.8, and it is a matter for the court to determine, with the obligation being on the Claimant to apply under Rule 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.


The usual rule when a Claimant sues under a contract is that it must provide a copy of that contract (Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.3(1)). Claimants in proceedings issued via MCOL are exempt from this (Practice Direction 7E paragraph 5.2A) except when separate Particulars of Claim are served, as is the case in this Claim. Therefore, the Claimant is also in breach of this aspect of the CPR because it has failed to provide the contract with the Particulars. The absence of the contract is a serious bar to me providing a proper defence to the claim (the Claimant should have produced a copy of it in the pre-action phase of the proceedings, against both the new Protocol for Debt Claims and the pre-existing Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct).

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.

Yours Faithfully

Loadsofchildren123

You can email it
Add to the end "I confirm that I have sent a copy of this letter to CEL"

Eaglehawk

Hi here is a draft copy of my defence, I have posted the letter on late PoC's etc.. I would be thankful is some one could read it over and make some suggestions. It is mainly cut and past but I have tried to add a few points
2e. where i tried to include the fact they never included the contract although they should of and 7 where I ask for proof the defendant is the driver as in particulars the state when the defendant parked the vehicle not 100% sure if they need to be added?
Also as they state the defendant is the driver does section 3 apply?
also they refere to Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council should i include something about that as well


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 claimant failed to include a copy of the "contract" as required when seperate Particulars of Claim are served.

f) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

g) 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 £322.43 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. The complainant is put to strict proof that the claimant was the driver of the vechile at the time of the incedent.

8. 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.


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 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.

Eaglehawk

Hi, please could someone help on my draft defence, I am hoping to submit it on Thursday. thanks in advance. I gotta add the support has been amazing on this forum, and continues to be even during this flood of help requests. :T

Coupon-mad

Eaglehawk wrote: »

Hi, please could someone help on my draft defence, I am hoping to submit it on Thursday. thanks in advance. I gotta add the support has been amazing on this forum, and continues to be even during this flood of help requests. :T

If you get no responses then submit it, as long as you've done the obligatory complaints too.

It is a DEFENCE not defense...

Eaglehawk

Thank you yes I have done the obligatory complaints, they do not appear anywhere in the online MCOL screen, didn't know if they should appeared there? I did get a auto response from the court saying they had received the email. (defense stuck in my mind as correct as I had language set originally to English us and it change the spelling when i first started will correct it). wow 12:35am response! thankyou

Eaglehawk

Update to say that I have submitted the defence via email. It only took 2 hours for an entry to appear in the MCOL screen saying defence received with a date stamp. Cannot currently view the defence online, but nice to have the notification.:beer: (After a bit of a read it appears I will not see the defense online, and the court will post a copy to cel)

Loadsofchildren123

regarding your complaint, see this thread which is interesting
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5742167

Coupon-mad

If the POC were backdated and you kept the envelope that proved they were not posted when dated, PLEASE NOW forward the complaint you made to the CCBC, to another email address.

We need LOTS of these to fly into a specific inbox now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73400735#Comment_73400735

Once that has been done, please confirm. We need to bombard the CCBC (specifically to Amanda Beck who is aware of this scam) with evidence about CEL.

Do this - even if you've already emailed a complaint - PLEASE forward it now!