CEL Court Papers Recieved

AndySab

My defence now - at the advice of Redx and others - is to first to get them to clarify the contract, signage etc and as my now current defence statement states, I can't offer a full defence until they do so. The parking eye thing is a balls up on my part. Sorry for the confusion.

My defence, should it go to court, is that yes. I did park there, I did go into the pub and I did stay there for 2 hours and the displayed signage in the car park "parking for patrons only" (which I can demonstrate was there from at least 2009 to the present day through the wonderful medium of Google Street view).

DollyDee_2

AndySab wrote: »

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.

I think you can email it to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk.

You will have to sign your defence statement, scan everything, save as PDF and email it as an attachment. Put your Claim Number in the Subject field.

DollyDee_2

You have to send a copy to CEL as well, not sure if you can email it. I'll have a search.

EDIT : This is incorrect, copy to court only at this stage - sorry.

AndySab

I thought the initial defence statement just went to the court and they send it to the claimant? The later witness statements/photos etc get sent to the claimant as well the court?

DollyDee_2

Deleted, wrong advice given.

DollyDee_2

AndySab wrote: »

I thought the initial defence statement just went to the court and they send it to the claimant? The later witness statements/photos etc get sent to the claimant as well the court?

I'm not sure, I'll come back to you unless one of the regulars does.

Edit : you are correct. Copy to court who forward to Claimant (just read Bargepole's walk through).

AndySab

I'm within plenty of time either way so for the avoidance of any techo balls ups I'll just head down the post office this afternoon and fire my defence statement off to the court manager by special delivery. If someone comes back that I also have to send it to CEL I'll do that as well although bargepole's post doesn't say to do that. Only send it to the court who will send it to CEL.

Does anyone think I need a covering letter with it or is it just the statement with the case number number etc on it that goes in the envelope?

Loadsofchildren123

AndySab wrote: »

I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, deny I amThe Defendant admits that he was the driver of the vehicle on the relevant date and that he parked on the relevant land. However, he denies that he is 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). The Claimant has not, for example, provided evidence of the terms of any contract it says was entered into, of its authority to operate on the relevant land, or how it has calculated the additional charges it seeks. All of this prevents the Defendant from As an example as to why this prevents filing a full defence being filed at this time, because he does not know whether the claim is brought in respect of 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 - although dated 11th October they were not in fact posted until 25th October and the Defendant has retained the envelope showing the date of the post mark in an envelope post marked on the 25th October. Pursuant to Rule 7.4(1)(b) they should have been served by xxxx October. Accordingly, the Claimant should have applied for relief from the sanctions contained in Rule 3.8 by making an application under Rule 3.9.

4: The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge with no explanation as to how these have been calculated. 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. - and in any event the Claimant is not using solicitors.

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 Defendant parked in accordance with the signage he saw on the relevant date, which stated

. The Defendant was a patron on the date he parked there and was therefore authorised to do so. The Defendant admits that there was one other sign on the land, but it was obscured, badly displayed, not seen by him and even if he had seen and read it it was Signage at the site is both unclear and inconsistent. The Defendant will rely on a Google Street View Image of the car park entrance taken in (October 2015) which shows these 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 or evidence of the signage (which it should have done in the pre-action phase of these proceedings).

8: The Defendant was entitled to believe that he was authorised to park in the car park, having read and understood the wording on the first sign, and because he was a patron at the time he parked. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no other contractual terms which bound him 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 the Defendant submits 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.

Your other post where you reply to my query about PE/CEL, did you just make a mistake then and it was always CEL? so the whole PE issue is a red herring?


I've made some brief changes - you need to concentrate much more on the other sign that you did see and which clearly authorised you to park there.

DollyDee_2

You can email it (I got that part right, sorry duff info earlier).

See post #7 by hoohoo in bargepole's walk through.

Loadsofchildren123

sorry if I confused things saying to serve the defence as well, I usually do no-MCOL court work - do whatever bargepole's walk through says.