Civil enforcement claim form - first correspondence

Bharrison

Good morning

I’m at a loss really of where to start!

I’ve received a Civil Enforcement Ltd Claim Form which relates back to an incident in December 2015.

I do not live at the address where this was sent - I happened to receive it from a relative. I also no longer own the car I think it relates to.

This is my first correspondence regarding the incident as I live elsewhere - my current car and license etc are all registered here.

I don’t even know what the fine was for!

Any suggestions?

Ralph-y

hi, and welcome to the forum ..........

the forum is very busy at the min ...

so you can help by reading the newbies thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

it will answer most / all your questions ...

then you can ask further questions as needed ...

doing a forum scan for 'cel' will bring up a multitude of threads / posts relating to this type of scam

Ralph:cool:

nosferatu1001

Yes, that you will have to defend this. Fairly obvious really!

However, I assume it is the standard CEL form that states that further Particulars of Claim will be sent within 14 days?

Yes or No

If YES, then for now - you can do nothing definitive. You need to grab an example CEL defence and adapt it to the details you have to hand. IF the PoC turn up - and you will by now have read the what, 5 or 6 CEL threads on this page alone that show they DONT turn up - then you acknowledge the claim, use the better PoC to fine tune your defence, post it here for critique, and submit. If they PoC DONT turn up within 14 days of date of service (given to you, on the form) then you apply to thte court for the claim to be struck out, either of their own volition or they may ask you to pay £100 which you ask the court to oder the claimant to repay.

Not having the car any lnoger is entirely irrelevant.

Loadsofchildren123

If that's your real name, you should consider changing your username to something more anonymous.

Bharrison

Ok so the particulars of claim came through. I have sifted through threads and synthesised a few defences to form my own (really don't know what I'm doing here so apologies for just copying others.........)

My main defence will have to rely on the fact that I was not the driver and that the signage was inadequate.

In the County Court Business Centre
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited
V
XXXXXXXXXXX




Claim Number: XXXXXXXX

I am _________, the defendant in this matter. My address for service is _____

This is my statement of truth and my defence.

I was the registered keeper of a _____, registered number ________

1. It is denied that:

a. A contract was formed

b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.

c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.

d. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional but unspecified additional sums.

e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

f. That the defendant is liable for the purported debt.


2. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.

Defense

3. The Claim Form issued on 09/10/2017 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”.

4. The Claim Form issued on 09/10/2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was the first documentation received by the Defendant, who, around the date of the alleged offence (08/12/15), moved house. The Claim Form was only received as a relative happened to forward post from the old address.

5. The driver has never been identified by the Claimant. The Claimant issued a compliant notice under 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.
Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.

6.

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. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when it is believed that neither the signs, nor any NTK mentioned a possible additional £145.55 for outstanding debt and damages.

7. 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.

8. The signage which apparently contractually bound the Defendant were inadequate for the following reasons:
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 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.
iii The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
iv The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
v The sum pursued exceeds £100.

9. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car over 21 months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

10. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
• Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 11th October 2017.
• 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.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


_________

Please advise and help!

KeithP

Your point 5. need review.

You state "The Claimant issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012".

You then go on to say that the notice cannot hold the keeper liable.

Suggest that quote should be "The Claimant issued a non-compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012".


There seems to be nothing in there about failing to comply with the new debt protocols introduced on 01 Oct 2017.