CEL Court Papers Recieved

Redx

by all means tell the judge what the truth is, if you think it will help

also bear in mind that at DQ stage you will have to issue your witness statement and that is where this info will be put to the judge

but at this moment in time you are creating the legal arguments for your defence (which you cannot add to later without considerable expense)

so if there are valid points in that other defence , use them

expand on the POC aspect too, if you dont have all the relevant documents and pictures and contracts etc in order to make your case

so if they have failed on the PaP , say so

if they failed on signage , say so

if they have failed on contracts etc , say so

if you dont know the answers to the above , say so, by asking them to prove them all to the judge and to provide them to you and permission to revise your defence

if you dont allege a failure , it wont be taken into consideration and you cannot add it later

AndySab

Thanks. Redx. I'll redraft it now. Appreciate the help.

Redx

no probs , your earlier defence statement looked more lile a WS to me , hence my query because you appear to have confused the earlier legal argument defence with the witness statement (which come later on)

therefore, save it and adapt it for your WS down the track if it gets to DQ stage and you have to submit evidence and WS etc a few weeks before the hearing

Coupon-mad

Your particulars arrived late, so why are you not checking by phone on Monday with the CCBC to ask when they got their copy, before you rush to defend it without trying the alternative stance suggested by the forum's solicitor posters?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73328046#Comment_73328046

You have to act quickly but you have an alternative for Monday morning. Whoever rings will have to stay on the phone to await CCBC to actually answer and will need to ''be you'' (just saying).

DO NOT read 'advice' posted by newly-joined posters, and do NOT read private messages from people with another agenda, offering to help.

AndySab

I've scavenged and edited another couple of paragraphs from another defence demanding proof from the claimant of their contract with the landowner, signage etc.


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.

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. 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.

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) 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.

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.
1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
2. 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.
3. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
1. 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.
2. It is believed the signage was not lit 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 an authorised party using the premises as intended.
3. 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.
4. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
4. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!
1. the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
2. the sum pursued exceeds £100.
3. there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

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 to the claimant in this case.

Coupon-mad

You've got nothing there about the new protocols for Debt Claims from 1st October and nothing to tell the Judge who reads it, how late the POC were received. So you'd need to add that near the top too.

It should not be written 'I was there' it should be in the third person, in your case: 'The Defendant was there' (I notice you've already blabbed about who was driving which is awful news, but hey, we've still never seen CEL take our defended cases to a hearing). Normally we would NEVER say 'the Defendant parked' but you've blown those toes off already.

You need every paragraph numbered, one by one.

You need a statement of truth at the end, as you see on all other defences here.

You need to read the post above yours, and make that call to the CCB on Monday or delegate it to another person to ''be you'' to ask when the CCBC received the POC at their end. The links leading from the post I made above, tell you what to do before you even think about submitting a defence, and you must take the steps in the right order.

Redx

the thread I linked had most or all of the above points that should be included in any defence

I am surprised you did not take those issues onboard, especially about the new 01 oct 2017 protocols

AND , as I stated earlier, when you are talking about yourself etc , that is for the later in the process witness statement

AndySab

Ok. I've stripped some stuff out. Added some in as recommended. Sorted formatting (not sure how well that's coped over though) and left out the stuff about what I did/didn't do. Thanks for your help guys.


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

1: 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”.

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

3: The Particulars of claim were not received by the defendant until the 27th October - dated 11th October in an envelope post marked on the 25th October.

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.

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. 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.

6: 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.

7: The Signage at the site is both unclear and inconsistent. The Google Street View Image of the car park entrance (October 2015) 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 the claimant has provided no pictures of the signage.

8: 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 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 was not lit 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 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.

e. 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.


The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter.



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

AndySab

Thanks for you all your help on this. It's been invaluable. I've learnt a lot over the last few days. I've got my defence statement printed - formatted and headed as recommended by bargepole''s post and I've added a footer to each page given the claim number and that it's page 1 of 2, 2 of 2.

This is probably a dumb question but do I need to add a covering letter or just post the defence registered to the Northampton court business centre?

Thanks again.

Loadsofchildren123

Hang on, haven't we all missed something here (not the OP, he asked about it).


In a previous post he's pointed out that he got a demand from Parking Eye (presumably a 14-day NtK as he doesn't mention a windscreen pcn), but it's CEL now suing him.


Although prolific on this forum now, I haven't been here for long. Am I missing something? What's the connection between PE and CEL? How can CEL claim he had a contract with them?


What did the signs say? PE or CEL?


If the signage named CEL, the NtK is invalid if it names PE, isn't it? He's outed himself as driver, so invalid NtK isn't a defence now.


However, it's important because if the signage named PE, CEL is the wrong Claimant, isn't it?


Also, you say you were meeting someone there. Do you mean you went into the pub and were therefore a permitted parker under the "no parking except for patrons" sign? Or did you just wait in the car park to pick up your friend? This is important because in your defence you should be claiming you did have authority to park.