We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Civil Enforcement Ltd - parking in hotel car park
Shimzoo
Posts: 10 Forumite
Hi. Thank you for the great information on here. I have read through the newbies stuff and returned the Acknowledgement of Service with no comments via the moneyclaim.gov.uk web site.
I have ignored innumerable letters from CEL which I stupidly disposed of. I was not expecting to receive a county court claim. The did not send details of the claim with the first claim form received but I have now received details after returning the acknowledgement online.
I parked in a Holiday Inn car park and went into the hotel for a meeting two years ago. I was there for a couple of hours and bought drinks etc for the meeting and then left. Neither on the way in or on the way out did I see signs telling me I had to do something. Apparently I should have advised reception I was there and got a permit from them which I did not do. I do not live nearby to this hotel. When I got the first letter I called the hotel for support and they said there was nothing they could do. I chose to ignore all the letters hoping they would give up. Which I have successfully done before.
I've copied other standard responses as below. I'm not sure if I've done this correctly given my situation. I would appreciate guidance before returning the response which I will do recorded delivery back to the County Court Business Centre.
I have only amended dates in the wording below. I look forward to your advice!!
Thank you.
In the County Court Business Centre
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited
V
XXXXXXXXXXX
Claim Number: XXXXXXXX
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 9/10/2017 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”.
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.
There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
‘early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.’
The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of 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.
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 £149.66 for outstanding debt and damages.
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.
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.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
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.
Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
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.
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 by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
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.
The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
the sum pursued exceeds £100.
there is / was no compliant landowner contract.
No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.
The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
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.
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 10 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.
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 9th 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.
The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
I have ignored innumerable letters from CEL which I stupidly disposed of. I was not expecting to receive a county court claim. The did not send details of the claim with the first claim form received but I have now received details after returning the acknowledgement online.
I parked in a Holiday Inn car park and went into the hotel for a meeting two years ago. I was there for a couple of hours and bought drinks etc for the meeting and then left. Neither on the way in or on the way out did I see signs telling me I had to do something. Apparently I should have advised reception I was there and got a permit from them which I did not do. I do not live nearby to this hotel. When I got the first letter I called the hotel for support and they said there was nothing they could do. I chose to ignore all the letters hoping they would give up. Which I have successfully done before.
I've copied other standard responses as below. I'm not sure if I've done this correctly given my situation. I would appreciate guidance before returning the response which I will do recorded delivery back to the County Court Business Centre.
I have only amended dates in the wording below. I look forward to your advice!!
Thank you.
In the County Court Business Centre
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited
V
XXXXXXXXXXX
Claim Number: XXXXXXXX
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 9/10/2017 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”.
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.
There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
‘early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.’
The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of 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.
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 £149.66 for outstanding debt and damages.
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.
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.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
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.
Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
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.
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 by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
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.
The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
the sum pursued exceeds £100.
there is / was no compliant landowner contract.
No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.
The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
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.
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 10 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.
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 9th 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.
The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
0
Comments
-
Did CEL say they would produce more detailed POC within 14 days?The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action.
Have you read this by lawyer Loadsofchildren123?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5735738Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.#Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Thanks Umkomaas....I had not seen that advice from Loadsofchildren123....I received the initial county claim notice the day before I was going on holiday. I read up as much as I could and then returned the Acknowledgement. This was clearly a mistake. The POC from CEL was waiting for me when I returned from holiday last weekend. That's where I'm at. So it appears I've lost the opportunity to have it thrown out because of their probable error. I'm kicking myself!!!! Argh!!!
Based on where I'm at what should I do next? Shall I send the defense as above?
I'm now going to find a very hard wall to bang my head against.....0 -
The hotel is responsible for the actions of its agents, try contacting them again, they can stop this at any time, or issue a statement withdrawing support for court action.
post on here anything you plan to send to the hotel first.From the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
Thanks Half_way,
If I send something to the hotel and wait for them to reply will I not risk missing out on dates for court action?
I'm not sure what you mean by "a statement withdrawing support for court action" ...what exactly is that, who do I send it to and what's the objective of sending it?
Please forgive my lack of understanding. I'm very grateful for your help.0 -
A letter or email from the hotel stating they do not support CEL taking court action against you."a statement withdrawing support for court action" ...what exactly is that, who do I send it to!
It can be addressed to you or, even better, to cel, specifically asking them to withdraw.0 -
Thanks Lamilad. I'm concerned this will take too long given that I have limited time now county court stuff is in flow. Are you suggesting I should send a letter anyway and hope for a reply?0
-
I called the hotel and spoke to the General Manager. He advised that he hates CEL and that he was living with a contract signed by his predecessor. He said he'd even turn up in court if necessary to support our defense! I have his email address and he has said he will do whatever I need to help make this go away. I therefore intend to ask him to send me the following letter:
Dear <myname>
Further to our conversation I am happy to confirm that I am very unhappy for our hotel to be associated with Civil Enforcement Ltd. We receive a large volume of complaints from our customers every month about this organisation and the 'fines' they are receiving.
You have advised me of the following details regarding the claim being brought against you by CEL:
Vehicle Registration:
PCN Reference:
Date of incident:
Car Park Details:
Claim Number:
As the General Manager of the <name of hotel> in <location> I wish to advise that we in no way support the action being brought against you. I am happy for you to provide this letter to the court to advise them that we would like CEL to withdraw the court action being taken against you. If you need me to write directly to CEL on this matter I will be happy to do so.
Yours sincerely
<name of general manager>
<hotel>
....please can you advise if this will be adequate to receive from the GM of the hotel. Thank you!!!!0 -
That should hole them below the waterline. You may wish to bung in a counter claim, (£1.00 for stress plus a full page apology in the Daily Mail).
The Manager deserves ***** on TripAdviser.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Can you get him to confirm that you were attending a business meeting at the hotel on the day as well and that you were a genuine paying patron and that you should never have received a charge?
Also where you say he'll write to CEL if you need him to, he should do that anyway, complaining about their conduct in targeting genuine patrons and then refusing to cancel the charges, and asking them to withdraw their claim, and he should provide you with a copy of that letter.
Tell him if he looks at the contract there must be a get out clause he can use to end it and chuck them off the site.Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.0 -
Tell him if he looks at the contract there must be a get out clause he can use to end it and chuck them off the site.
Indeed, especially if their actions are affecting his bottom line.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards