CEL County Court claim

Garbled

Hi all,
Firstly, a big thank you to all the knowledgeable regular posters on this forum. I had no idea there was so much help and advice out there!

Similar to many posters on here I have recently received County Court papers citing CEL as the claimant. Reading many posts and taking all the relevant info on board i have come up with a short defence statement as below. Would i be right in thinking that conformance with POFA 2012 is the acid test and if the claimant didn't reference POFA 2012 on the PCN and cannot confirm the drivers identity then the case would be dismissed?


In the County Court Business Centre, Nottingham
Case No. xxxxxxx

Civil Enforcement Ltd ‘V’ xxxxx xxxxx


I, xxxxx xxxxx am the defendant and reistered keeper and reside at xxxxxxxxxx. I deny all allegations against me (particularly the scant and vague allegations as shown in the “Particulars of Claim”).

The claimant states in the PoC that he will forward further info but he didn’t do this within 14 days of the Date of Service, so it is only an assumption that the claimant is referring to a PCN that was issued to the keeper in December 2015.

The claimant has inflated the original alleged amount due of £100, by a further £100 debt collector fees (for ZZPS Ltd) and then a further £36 solicitor fees (Wright Hassle LLP) and then a further £xx interest.

1) The claimant is not making use of Keeper Liability Provisions. The claimants PCN did not refer to Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. The “Issue Notice to Keeper” 14-day time limits for using schedule 4 had been exceeded, therefore the claimant had no basis whatsoever to write to me (the registered keeper), except for the single purpose allowed under the DVLA KADOE rules, namely to 'enquire who was driving'. The claimant did not do this nor did the claimant provide any proof or evidence of who the driver was. The claimant must not use the data for any other purpose whatsoever, and certainly not to pursue me (the registered keeper). I am not lawfully required to offer the identity of the driver in this case.

2) The claimant uses ANPR technology to clock vehicles in/out of the car park (which in this case allowed 1-hour free parking). I believe the overstay as stated on the PCN would be well within any allowable grace periods, for the following reasons.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

Clause 13 generally - suggests a reasonable/sensible approach to Parking Terms and Conditions.

Clause 13.4 specifically - states a minimum of 10 minutes must be allowed to exit the car park.

Clause 13.2 specifically - applies to entering the car park, but does not state a duration.

However, the duration must allow the time between ANPR timings and locating an available parking space/actual parking the vehicle/exiting the vehicle to read the signage and digest the content and then deciding if to accept/reject the T+C’s.

I believe the claimant is not acting in the “spirit of the contract” in relation to the intended requirement of Clause 13.


3) The truthfulness of the claimant cannot be guaranteed or relied upon, as I notice that the Court Claim form has not been signed personally by someone who has the legal capacity or authority to do so.

Signed xxxxx xxxxx
Dated xx/xx/xx

Any thoughts on if you think i'm on the right lines would be gratefully appreciated.

Lamilad

Similar to many posters on here I have recently received County Court papers citing CEL as the claimant. Reading many posts and taking all the relevant info on board i have come up with a short defence statement!

Too short I'm afraid. Nothing about signage, vague particulars, locus standi, CPR/ PD failures.

You say you've read many other threads, I doubt that as we have commented on numerous CEL defences over the last week alone, so you would have seen which ones we've given the thumbs up.

so it is only an assumption that the claimant is referring to a PCN that was issued to the keeper in December 2015.

If the claimant hadn't made clear what event has led to the claim, then it could be argued that they have no cause of action, so don't state it for them

Garbled

Get the point about not stating the cause for claim.
I hadn't put anything about the signage because the entry sign is clear and there are many signs dotted about stating what the terms are.

i was hoping by making it short and sweet i wouldn't tangle myself up with statements that didn't apply or were not relevant.

Umkomaas

I hadn't put anything about the signage because the entry sign is clear and there are many signs dotted about stating what the terms are.

I presume from this that you then know the definition of ‘clear signage’ as per the BPA Code of Practice and the assessment and comments made by the Supreme Court in the Barry Beavis case?

You have to remember that it is for the Claimant to prove his case. You don’t do his job for him, or make it easy by not raising issues where there may be a deficiency.

Garbled

I had read the BPA Code several times and concluded that the sign layout CEL have used was perfectly in accordance with the code. I've even measured the font on the sign itself and it does conform. The code says they can ignore the text in square brackets which CEL have also done. The sign says in Bold words "FREE PARKING" then underneath says "TERMS APPLY" in same big font. The secondary signs around the car park also conform perfectly.
Just thought because the signs were in accordance, it wasn't worth mentioning things that would quickly be quashed.

Coupon-mad

Ignore a criticism of the signs at your peril. We see off CEL every week on here, with defences which mention all relevant issues and signage is always relevant. Partly, a long defence is a strategy to encourage CEL to discontinue.

(particularly the scant and vague allegations as shown in the “Particulars of Claim”)

Have you actually got the POC yet, was it stated on the claim form under 'POC' or have they said they are 'to follow' as you will have read about in other CEL threads that I do hope you've been reading and bookmarking.

Garbled

Ok i'm now looking at previous sign related defence and tailoring to suit my situation. I'll post back when completed.

No, i haven't had any PoC from CEL (other than standard DATE - DESCRIPTION - AMOUNT - DUE DATE in the PoC box . They promise to deliver to me within 14 days from DoS of the Claim form (which i read to be 19 days from the issue date stated top right of Claim Form 14+5).

Loadsofchildren123

Write to the court pointing out that wording, separate PoC have not been served, and the claim form by itself is incoherent without proper particulars. You are unable to defend it properly on that basis, and please can they please strike it out under CPR rule 3.4 (exercising inherent case management powers under CPR rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26 para 5.1 in order to do so, rather than requiring you to issue an application).

Loadsofchildren123

General comments on your defence:


1. It must be written in the third person - so references to "the Defendant/his/him/he" (assuming you are male) and references to "the Claimant/it/its" etc.


2. You need to start off by denying being the driver and admitting being the registered keeper.


Or are you just putting them to proof that you were driving, which is a more dangerous game. If you can produce enough at the evidence stage to cast doubt over who was driving (eg an insurance schedule showing more than one named driver) then it's OK. But if you can't produce anything to suggest that you weren't driving, then the court may make a finding that you were. It's entitled to do that.

Garbled

Wow! Lots of clauses for me to look into there (probably tonight). Sorry if i don't always quick reply as trying to hold down a 9 to 5 job whilst looking into this! appreciate the help from all though.

I do have insurance stating more than 1 driver and CEL cannot provide evidence of who was driving. Also tonight will be looking further into the driver/keeper liability of POFA.

The CEL PCN states more than 14 days between incident date and issue date, so i believe they are not relying on POFA 2012 to warrant there claim.

nosferatu1001

CEL dont rely on POFA, they "rely" on EvL
I say "rely", as theyve not made it to court against a forum defence recently. They just discontinue

Have you asked the court to strike out yet? You MUST NOT submit a defence, as you do NOt have the full paritculars.