CEL Court Papers Recieved

AndySab

Hi everyone. I've had a read through various threads, the newby sticky and some other people's draft defences and I'm looking for some advice please.

My case relates to parking in a pub car park in April 2015. I parked there because I was met someone at the pub. A few weeks later I received a demand for iirc £40 from Parking eye for unauthorised parking. Possibly stupidly I emailed them to tell them I had a parked there and I was a customer at the pub. They replied that my appeal was denied. After that point I ignored them and the steady stream of letters demanding ever larger sums of money.

I received the court papers from Northampton dated 4th October which said detailed particulars would be sent to me in 14 days and used MCOL to acknowledge service. Today I have received the particulars from CEL (their letter is dated the 11th in an envelope franked on the 25th).

By way of defence I intend (unless advised otherwise here) to admit that I parked there but that I was there for the sole reason I was customer of the pub and I can provide a witness statement from the person I met in the pub.

Also the timing of this was 7:30pm and the pub car park is situated directly opposite a council run multi storey car park that is free to park in after 6:30 pm and that the only reason anyone would park in the car park of that put at that time is to visit the pub.

Am I making any huge mistakes?

Thanks

KeithP

AndySab wrote: »

Am I making any huge mistakes?

Yes, I think you are.

They will claim that by parking there, the driver was agreeing to terms of a contract displayed on signs.
Were those signs visible enough to be able to form the basis of a contract?

They will make out that you broke those terms.

They will not be the slightest bit interested in why you were there.
Nor is it relevant that the car park opposite is free.

Never admit who was driving - not to anyone - nor on this forum.

Ralph-y

so .......
please have read of the newbies thread ....

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

it will explain , and answer most / all your questions


good luck

Ralph:cool:

AndySab

KeithP wrote: »

Yes, I think you are.
Never admit who was driving - not to anyone - nor on this forum.

The problem I have is that I already did, 2 years ago when I first got the PCN through.

The signage at the site is worded (according to the particulars of the claim) "Parking for authorised <pub name> customers only - if you park in breach of this rule, you agree to pay our charge. Additional costs will be incurred if you fail to pay in 28 days".

The defence I'm thinking of is that it's not even slightly reasonable to expect a person who is using a pub and parking in their car park to be seeking out signs to read before going in. That I was a customer of the pub. Mainly because that's the truth.

Also, the particulars of the claim state that the claimant managed the car park but the initial PCN never came from Civil Enforcement, it came from parking eye. Does anyone know if this is significant at all?

KeithP

AndySab wrote: »

The defence I'm thinking of is that it's not even slightly reasonable to expect a person who is using a pub and parking in their car park to be seeking out signs to read before going in. That I was a customer of the pub. Mainly because that's the truth.

And what are the legal arguments of that?

If that's all you can come up with, then you will lose.

Have you read even one defence linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread?

AndySab

KeithP wrote: »

And what are the legal arguments of that?

If that's all you can come up with, then you will lose.

Have you read even one defence linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread?

Cheers Keith. I have yeah. It's trying to work out how those apply to my case given that I've already admitted I've parked there. I think Iv'e got it cracked though.

I've pulled up the Google street view picture of the car park entrance from October 2015. There's 2 signs at the car park entrance. One is their terms and conditions white sign, blue writing. It's attached to the wall at the side at about 2ft from the ground and a little over A3 size. It's also obscured by the pub's board advertising Sky TV. The other much more prominent sign on the 2015 Google Street view image (and it's still there today, I've just been and checked and photographed it) states "Parking for Patrons Only. Gates Closed at 11:30pm"

So my legal argument is that I have parked in accordance with the displayed signage in the car park and have a witness statement from the person I was there to meet.

I'm also going to cut and paste some bits from other defences regarding their particulars lacking any photographs of signage, contract with the land owner etc.

Redx

do that , and draft your defence and post it here for critique etc

AndySab

This is where I'm at with my defence:

I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

The Claim Form issued on 4/10/2017 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”.

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.


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 Signage at the site is both unclear and inconsistent. The Google Street View Image of the car park entrance (October 2015 <google image link ref>) shows two signs. One is clearly visible at eye level to a driver entering the car park and states “Car Park For Patrons Only. Gates Closed at 11:30PM” the other is attached to a low wall, less than 2ft from the ground and is obscured by an A board. This sign may or may not contain the contract information the claimant alludes to in their particulars of claim but they have provided no pictures of the signage.

I parked at the site at the time that the claimant states and I did so as a patron of the XXXXXX public house. I was there to meet XXXXX and can provide a witness statement from him confirming this. It is my contention that I parked in accordance with the signage at the site and as such have no liablity in this case.

---

Thanks for the help so far, it's been very, very useful.

Redx

is that all ?

they usually look more like this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5729157

but its your "funeral"

at least you have attempted something , whereas most members want spoon feeding

good luck

Lamilad

Yeah... that defence won't cut it. Follow the link Redx has given you and let's see your revised draft.

AndySab

I've read that one and others. I'm not sure how I can shoe horn that much in to mine. Their claim particulars aren't especially vague, they've only referenced Beavis in terms of being able to demand large sums of money.

I guess what I'm asking is. Do I need anything else, given that the signs on the site are unclear and contradictory (and I can demonstrate as much with photographs), to render this supposed contract void? I've got a little bit of experience (albeit from over 20 years ago) of county court and I'm conscious that when the hearing comes along I've got to persuade the judge I'm telling the truth - which I am - and don't want to seem like I'm over egging the pudding.

With the benefit of hindsight I wish I hadn't tied to resolve this in the first place and just ignored them until the court papers arrived, it would have made this more straightforward. As it is I'm stuck with things as they are. These people really are chancers. I'm not even that arsed about the money as much as I'm bothered about these people having me over for going to the pub.