Civil Enforement ltd HELP NEEDED.....

love_life

ok thanks Quentin will do

love_life

thanks for your help and input Quentin,Lamilad,Loadsofchildren123,and couponmad,
think this is my defence finished dont know what else i can really add in so i will submit it monday 6/11,if anyone has any input what else i could add or remove from denfence much appreciated ,thanks

In The County Court
Claim Number:xxxxxxx

Between
Civil Enforcement Limited ( Claimant )
V
XXXXXXXXXXX ( Defendant )
_________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
_________________________


I am xxxxxxxxx , the defendant in this matter,i deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim or any amount at all, for each of the following reasons:
For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the driver of the vechile xxxxxxx , parked at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
1. There is no contact number for claimant to discuss the matter and explain my case and resolve the issue ,there is only a paymentline number.
2. The defendant had written a letter to the claimant to explain the following ,
A) the defendant was allowed to park at the relevant address as he had authorised permission as a worker.
he was working for xxxxx on a new store opening xxxxxxxxx,there was an agreement with xxxxxx and civil enforcement to allow the workers to park,as they needed regular access to there vechiles for materials for site and tools , upon arriving at the store the worker would have to sign the signing in book,date , name , signature and vechile registration number , as this information will be passed on to the claimant as an exempt worker and be excludeded from receiving a PCN.

C) having authorised permission as a worker and being exempted from receiving a fine the defendant parked at the the relevant address, for 1 week monday 05/12/16 to friday 09/12/16 ,and only recieved a PCN for 05/12/16 ,as the claimant had recieved the defendants VRN information from xxxxxxxx , which made him exempt from receiving a fine ,as this was his place of work,the claimant will have this information,thats why he did not recieve any other fines on the other dates.
D) the defendants co-workers have not recieved a PCN ,yet were all parked at the same location at the same times on the same dates, as having the same authorised permission as the defendant.

E) the claimant failed to reply to the defendants letter .

3. The claimant has failed , Para ( 3 ) Under the Pratice direction Objectives of pre-action conduct and protocols

Before commencing proceedings, the court will expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information to—

(a) understand each other’s position;
(b) make decisions about how to proceed;
(c) try to settle the issues without proceedings;
(d) consider a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to assist with settlement;
(e) support the efficient management of those proceedings; and
(f) reduce the costs of resolving the dispute.

The claimant has failed to acknowledge the defendants letter to ressolve the issue, (a)understand his position as a authorised worker ,(c) try to settle the issues without proceedings other than a fine.

4. 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”.
5. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction,and no explanation of how they will evidence the claim.
6. 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. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
A) early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
C) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
D) support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.
7. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
A) 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
A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
C) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
D) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
E) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
F) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
G) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
8. the claimant states on the claim form they will "provide the defendant with seperate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form " which they did not , defendant recieved particulars 17 days after claim form ,which had the date 11/10/2017 on them . ( sent out late and back dated ).
9. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information well-known to be generic cut and paste “Particulars” of claim have no mention the defendant was an authorised worker.
10. claimant had failed to address that the defendant had permission to park and they did not give sufficient time to reply and to request further information,as to why he recieved a PCN in the first place .
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017), 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.
14. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis.
15. That the amount demanded is therefore excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

16. Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which sets out that the maximum amount recoverable from the registered keeper .
17. I believe the unfair terms in comsumer contract regulations 1999 applies.
A) It is asserted that no reasonable person of whatever means, would willingly agree to pay a charge of £100 as a consequence of staying over free time, if they had the opportunity to negotiate the contract on equal terms with the other contracting party.
18. 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.
19. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.
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 ****

Coupon-mad

until now and get a N1SDT COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTHAMPTON
claim form in the post ,signed by Civil Enforement ltd.

I went to moneyclaim.gov as it says on the form made a goverment gateway ,put my information in, acknowledment of service and tick box defend all of this claim,today 22/10/2017.

Same as other cases where the Claim form has arrived & AOS done, but did the claim for say 'Particulars of Claim to Follow'? Have they arrived yet, if not then you do NOT yet file a defence.

This is covered in CEL threads this week. You need to email the CCBC and CEL when the POC arrive, if they are backdated and/or late. Read up on it, in any CEL thread this week, things are moving quickly in this specific advice. I've also just yesterday updated the NEWBIES thread post #2 about CEL cases.

Search this forum board (not the whole of MSE) for 'Particulars keep the envelope' !

love_life

@ coupon mad, yes the claim form said " i will provide the defendant with seperate detailed paticulars within 14 days after service of the claim form"

claim form 10/10/17
POC envelope dated 27/10/17 / poc letter back dated 11/10/17.

still all a bit confusing ive been reading alot of the threads all week .getting the hang of it now.

bargepole thread he says "You should now Acknowledge Service of the claim, ticking the box that says you will defend in full. Do NOT put anything in the 'Defence and Counterclaim' text box, not even a full stop. By doing this, you have extended the time to submit a defence to 28 days from date of service, which is the date printed on the claim form plus 5 days"

so is my last date the 7/11/17 or 12/11/17 to submit my defence by.
or do i have 14 days after receiving the PoCs to submit my defence which would be 10/11/17 .

“
The period for filing a defence
15.4
(1) The general rule is that the period for filing a defence is –
(a) 14 days after service of the particulars of claim; or
(b) if the defendant files an acknowledgment of service under Part 10, 28 days after service of the particulars of claim.
(Rule 7.4 provides for the particulars of claim to be contained in or served with the claim form or served within 14 days of service of the claim form)

copied this from ruffneck247 post, should send this to the court.

Dear XXXXX

Claim number [xxxxxxx]

Regarding Claim Form XXXX 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 10th 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 xxxxxxxx. As such, according to Rule 6.3(b) they were served on xxxxxx . However, they were dated the 11th October. , but not actually posted until the xxxxxx and received on the xxxxxx


Service on xxxxxxxx means that my defence is therefore not due until the xxxxxxx (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 xxxxx, together with the covering letter. Breach by the Particulars of Claim and the covering letter being backdated 11 October 2017, whereas they were only posted on the xxxxxxx and received on xxxxxx . This is clearly demonstrated by the post mark on the envelope they arrived in, which shows the date of posting as xxxxxx, 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.

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

and this which i copied from one of your post to cel,

Dear Sir/Madam,

Claim No. ###########

I am writing to you in regards to a money claim addressed to me by your company, Civil Enforcement Ltd.

I have finally received the Particulars of Claim today (xx/10/2017), which are rejected because they should have been sent to me by xx/10/2017 at the latest. Your company is in breach of CPR 7.4 because your particulars have been served out of time. In default of service, it is a fact that Civil Enforcement is in breach.

In order to get permission for late service of particulars, the claimant must apply to court for relief from the sanction (CPR 3.9). The test is that in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906.

As an unrepresented Litigant-in-Person, I consider that a delay of several days is more than trivial and, in the context of a claimant professionally represented with volume claims before the court, I believe that compliance with the court timetable is an imperative, and your breach has caused me significant detriment.

Accordingly whilst I consider the position, I require a copy of the certificate of service filed at court, verified with a statement of truth from a named individual, confirming the date of service. In the meantime, since no valid Particulars have been served, the matter is unable to proceed and there is no requirement upon me to serve a defence at this stage, and nor will you be able to enforce the claim.

Yours faithfully,


this is where i get confused because i think this is from one of Johnersh post,

Take the date on the claim form. Add 5 days. That is the service date. Add 14 days. That is the last date for service of the Particulars.

If there has been a failure to serve Particulars of Claim within the 14 days (and the wording on the claim form in this case expressly states that the particulars are to follow) then CPR Part 7.4 applies. They are out of time to serve Particulars. The CPR rule is there for a reason. You are entitled to certainty and to know the case against you. You are entitled to expect the claim to be progressed expeditiously and put before a judge. It is not correct to say there is no prejudice if particulars are sent late. The longer the delay, the greater the prejudice. If it's only a day overdue, that's unlikely to be sufficient, but the onus is on them.

In order to remedy their defect, the Claimant must apply for relief from sanctions in CPR 3.9 and in accordance with the test as set out in Denton v TH White That will be costly for them. Even if relief is granted the costs of the application are usually ordered against the defaulting party.

As I see it, the Defendant cannot apply for default judgment as they are unlikely to be able to serve a certificate of service showing you were served on time (and the partial wording on the claim form is insufficient to found a basis for the claim precisely because it says full particulars will follow). The greater the period of default the less likely it is that the Claimant will get relief.

I would sit tight and wait for the Particulars. If it gets to a week or two overdue, I would then write to them stating that they are overdue and indicating that if it is their intention to proceed they must apply for relief.
And then request the certificate of service containing a statement of truth.

so do i send email to court and cel or not and which date is the last date for my denfence,any insight or in put thank.

Coupon-mad

do i have 14 days after receiving the PoCs to submit my defence which would be 10/11/17 .

Yes. It's 14 days from the POC being served, BUT you must tell the court urgently by email that the POC only arrived on xx/xx/17 and prove it with the envelope, so no party is in any doubt about the true service date.

Hopefully LOC123 or Johnersh will check your letters as I have no time right now.

love_life

ok thank you coupon mad will do .
thank you

dan55

I too have recieved a PCN from civil enforcement for a fine for when the car was 100 percent not even parked there at that time. How is it possible to appeal on the grounds that the photos have been doctored without proof. I previously lost a popla appeal with same company but a different reason just as fraudulent in my eyes. Who can I go to for advice please?

love_life

@dan55 ,
you need to start your own thread,there are alot of helpful people on this forum will help u as much as they can but you need to do alot of reading like myself been at it for weeks ,as coupon mad says he done a newbies thread with alot of cel threads and infomation and there are alot of other cel thread were all in the same boat ,if you start a new thread explain what happened someone who knows about this stuff will point you in the right direction . sorry cant help more im new to this too.

Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES

Quentin

dan55 wrote: »

Who can I go to for advice please?

You can get advice here.


But not in this thread! Don't attempt to hijack someone elses.


Everyone is politely asked not to post until after reading the newbies faq thread near the top of the forum


If you need help after reading there and following the advice there then start your own thread

love_life

hi if anyone has the time to skim through my defense ,i will be sending it tonight thanks,as instructed on other threads ive sent an email and letter to cel about late poc and emailed court no reponse from either which i read on another thread i wont either ,so last day to submit my defence.

In The County Court
Claim Number:xxxxxxx

Between
Civil Enforcement Limited ( Claimant )
V
XXXXXXXXXXX ( Defendant )
_________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
_________________________


I am xxxxxxxxx , the defendant in this matter,i deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim or any amount at all, for each of the following reasons:

For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the driver of the vechile xxxxxxx , parked at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

1. There is no contact number for claimant to discuss the matter and explain my case and resolve the issue ,there is only a paymentline number.


2. The defendant had written a letter to the claimant to explain the following ,

A) the defendant was allowed to park at the relevant address as he had authorised permission as a worker.
he was working for xxxxx on a new store opening xxxxxxxxx,there was an agreement with xxxxxx and civil enforcement to allow the workers to park,as they needed regular access to there vechiles for materials for site and tools , upon arriving at the store the worker would have to sign the signing in book,date , name , signature and vechile registration number , as this information will be passed on to the claimant as an exempt worker and be excludeded from receiving a PCN.

C) having authorised permission as a worker and being exempted from receiving a fine the defendant parked at the the relevant address, for 1 week monday 05/12/16 to friday 09/12/16 ,and only recieved a PCN for 05/12/16 ,as the claimant had recieved the defendants VRN information from xxxxxxxx , which made him exempt from receiving a fine ,as this was his place of work,the claimant will have this information,thats why he did not recieve any other fines on the other dates.
D) the defendants co-workers have not recieved a PCN ,yet were all parked at the same location at the same times on the same dates, as having the same authorised permission as the defendant.

E) the claimant failed to reply to the defendants letter .


3. The claimant has failed , Para ( 3 ) Under the Pratice direction Objectives of pre-action conduct and protocols

Before commencing proceedings, the court will expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information to—

(a) understand each other’s position;
(b) make decisions about how to proceed;
(c) try to settle the issues without proceedings;
(d) consider a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to assist with settlement;
(e) support the efficient management of those proceedings; and
(f) reduce the costs of resolving the dispute.

The claimant has failed to acknowledge the defendants letter to ressolve the issue, (a)understand his position as a authorised worker ,(c) try to settle the issues without proceedings other than a fine.

4. 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”.(Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

5. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction,and no explanation of how they will evidence the claim.

6. 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. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

A) early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
C) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
D) support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

7. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
A) 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
A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
C) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
D) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
E) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
F) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
G) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

8. the claimant states on the claim form they will "provide the defendant with seperate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form " which they did not , defendant recieved particulars 17 days after claim form ,which had the date 11/10/2017 on them . ( sent out late and back dated ).

9. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information well-known to be generic cut and paste “Particulars” of claim have no mention the defendant was an authorised worker.

10. claimant had failed to address that the defendant had permission to park and they did not give sufficient time to reply and to request further information,as to why he recieved a PCN in the first place .
11. 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.

12. 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.

13. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017), 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.

14. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis.

15. That the amount demanded is therefore excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

16. Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which sets out that the maximum amount recoverable from the registered keeper .

17. I believe the unfair terms in comsumer contract regulations 1999 applies.

A) It is asserted that no reasonable person of whatever means, would willingly agree to pay a charge of £100 as a consequence of staying over free time, if they had the opportunity to negotiate the contract on equal terms with the other contracting party.

18. 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.

19. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

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 ****