CEL Claim Form received from CCBC

Mani786

Dear All,


Require some assistance with my defence.


Received Claim form from CCBC issued on 11 Oct 2017.
Claimants are CEL claiming for £322.69 inclusive of court fees and legal costs
Incident date 26th Feb 2017


Please note I replied to the first PCN by posting letter dated 10th March 2017 that I was not the driver and disclosed the drivers name & address. I received 2nd & 3rd PCN and replied the same to the third PCN.
6 months later I received a threatening letter from Wright Hassall solicitors demanding payment of £236 (did not state 'Formal letter of claim'). I replied the same and requested them to chase the driver at his home address.


I have now received the claim form and was able to register on the court website and extent up to 28 days from the date of service that being 16th October 2017. I was told that I have 28 days from the date of service that being 4 days after date of issue.......basically I have until the end of this week.


I have read a number of posts and have copy pasted and amended my defence a follows;

• 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 11/10/2017 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 defense 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 defense. 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.
    
    
    1. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
    2. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
    3. The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
    4. 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:
       1. ‘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
       2. 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
       3. 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
       4. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.’
    5. The Defense 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.
    6. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
       1. 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
       2. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
       3. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
       4. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
       5. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
       6. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
       7. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
    7. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defense.
  • 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 £322.69 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 license 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.
    1. 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.
    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 by an authorized 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.
  • 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 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.
    
    
    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.

Please note part of my defence is that I was not the driver of the vehicle only the registered keeper and therefore should I include the following statement as part of my defence.




The Defendant denies being the driver of the car on the day and place in question and can prove that via previous written correspondence to CEL confirming the name and address of the driver at the time of alleged offence. Given the Claimant’s failure to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they have not transferred liability from the driver to the keeper (the Defendant). The Defendant is not therefore liable for the claim and invites the court to strike it out.


Kind Regards

KeithP

In view of the fact that you have disclosed the name of the driver, why does your defence say:

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.

At the beginning of your defence you should deny being the driver and state that you have repeatedly notified the claimant of the driver's name and address.

Of course that does not mean they can't sue the keeper, so you still need to show that there is no keeper liability - as you appear to have done.

Mani786

Dear Keith,
Thank you for your prompt response.
I have amended my defence as per your comments.





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 Defendant denies being the driver of the car on the day and place in question and has repeatedly notified the Claimant of the driver’s name and address. Given the Claimant’s failure to meet the notice of keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they have not transferred liability from the driver to the keeper (Defendant). The Defendant is not therefore liable for the claim and invites the court to strike it out.
  • The Claim Form issued on 11/10/2017 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 defense 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 defense. 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.
    
    
    
    1. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
    2. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
    3. The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
    4. 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:
       
       1. ‘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
       2. 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
       3. 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
       4. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.’
    5. The Defense 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.
    6. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
       
       1. 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
       2. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
       3. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
       4. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
       5. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
       6. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
       7. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
    7. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defense.
  • 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 £322.69 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 license 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.
    
    1. 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.
    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 by an authorized 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.
  • 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.
    
    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.
    
    
    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.
  • Glad you like it!

Coupon-mad

I have now received the claim form and was able to register on the court website and extent up to 28 days from the date of service that being 16th October 2017. I was told that I have 28 days from the date of service that being 4 days after date of issue.......basically I have until the end of this week.

OK so have you already sent the complaint emails to CEL and to the CCBC, telling them about the late POC and the backdating, enclosing the envelope the POC arrived in?

As per all the zillions of other CEL threads the same, do that first (then defence within 14 days of the POC arriving, but NOT before they arrive).

Mani786

Hello


I didn't keep the envelope and only discovered the forum site a few days ago.


Should I send the emails anyway??

Mani786

Hello


I've managed to dig out the envelope from my bin........ Im pretty sure its the right envelope.


Therefore as follows;


Received claim form on 14th October, dated 11th October, stating PoC would follow in 14 days


Received PoC on 4th November, post marked 3rd November, with cover letter and PoC dated 11th October.


As per my deadline for filing defence would be 11th Oct +5+28 = 12th November 2017


Is it too late now to send the complaint emails to CEL and to the CCBC??


Much appreciated

Mani786

Hello


Is there any harm in sending out the complaint emails to CEL and CCBC in light of my filing deadline of 12th November 2017.


Dear Sir/Madam

Claim number XXXXX

Regarding Claim Form XXXXX I am writing to draw to your attention that the Claimant has deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim, which were served separate to the Claim Form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4(1)(b).

The Claim form was issued on 11th October 2017, stating that the Particulars of Claim would be provided to me within 14 days after service of the claim form

The further Particulars of Claim and covering letter were sent under cover of 4th November 2017. However, they were dated the 11th October 2017, but not actually posted until the 3rd November 2017 and received on the 4th November 2017 and service on 4th November means that my defense is therefore not due until the 19th November 2017 (Rule 15.4(1)(a)).

The Claimant has made a poor attempt to conceal the actual date on which it served the further Particulars by backdating them by 23 days, together with the covering letter. This is clearly demonstrated by the post mark on the envelope they arrived in, which shows the date of posting as 3rd November 2017, a copy of which I have provided as evidence The Civil Procedure Rules are quite clear - under Rule 3.8 the court should apply the sanctions unless the Claimant has applied for relief under 3.9.

I cannot fathom any reason for the Claimant having backdated its further Particulars of Claim, other than to try to gain an advantage by making it appear that I have filed my defense late, or by confusing me into having to rush to file my defense prematurely. This is a serious matter and I ask that this is formally noted on the court file.

This is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the Civil Procedure Rules and these sorts of blatant breaches should not be allowed because they prejudice Litigants in Person who are not versed in court procedures and the court rules. It is with some difficulty that I have understood the various obligations and time limits set out in the Civil Procedure Rules, as a Litigant in Person, whereas the commercial Claimant has no such excuse.

Yours Faithfully

Loadsofchildren123

Mani786 wrote: »

Hello


I've managed to dig out the envelope from my bin........ Im pretty sure its the right envelope.


Therefore as follows;


Received claim form on 14th October, dated 11th October, stating PoC would follow in 14 days


Received PoC on 4th November, post marked 3rd November, with cover letter and PoC dated 11th October.


As per my deadline for filing defence would be 11th Oct +5+28 = 12th November 2017 No. the defence is due 14 days after service of the further PoC. They were served 2 business days after postage, so this is 7th November, which means your defence is due 21st. You must write to the court and record these dates. The time limits are in Rules 9 and 15.4(1)(a).


Is it too late now to send the complaint emails to CEL and to the CCBC??no. Send it. The PoC were served late. They should have been served on 30 October (11 October +5 days +14 days). Send the version of the letter which complains that the Claimant has no leave to file late and therefore Rule 3.8 sanctions apply, and the Claimant must apply for relief under 3.9 if it wishes to rely on those PoC.
Assume you will not get a response to this letter and just get on with your defence though.


Much appreciated

comments above in red.

Mani786

Thank for your comments.....sigh of relief to hear that my defense deadline is 21st Nov
Amended complaints letter including the two points
Will be sending via email and recorded post....I believe CEL don't accept email?


Thank you


Dear Sir/Madam

Claim number XXXXX

Regarding Claim Form XXXXX I am writing to draw to your attention that the Claimant has deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim, which were served separate to the Claim Form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4(1)(b).

The Claim form was issued on 11th October 2017, stating that the Particulars of Claim would be provided to me within 14 days after service of the claim form

The further Particulars of Claim and covering letter were sent under cover of 4th November 2017. However, they were dated the 11th October 2017, but not actually posted until the 3rd November 2017 and received on the 4th November 2017 and service on 7th November 2017 which means that my defense is therefore not due until the 21st November 2017 (Rule 15.4(1)(a)).
Could I kindly request the court to record the above dates as per the time limits pursuant to Rule 9 and 15.4(1)(a).

The Claimant has made a poor attempt to conceal the actual date on which it served the further Particulars of Claim by backdating them by 27 days, together with the covering letter. This is clearly demonstrated by the post mark on the envelope they arrived in, which shows the date of posting as 3rd November 2017, a copy of which I have provided as evidence The Civil Procedure Rules are quite clear - under Rule 3.8 the court should apply the sanctions unless the Claimant has applied for relief under 3.9.

I cannot fathom any reason for the Claimant having backdated its further Particulars of Claim, other than to try to gain an advantage by making it appear that I have filed my defense late, or by confusing me into having to rush to file my defense prematurely. This is a serious matter and I ask that this is formally noted on the court file.

This is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the Civil Procedure Rules and these sorts of blatant breaches should not be allowed because they prejudice Litigants in Person who are not versed in court procedures and the court rules. It is with some difficulty that I have understood the various obligations and time limits set out in the Civil Procedure Rules, as a Litigant in Person, whereas the commercial Claimant has no such excuse.

Yours Faithfully

nosferatu1001

No, your defence is not due. The PoC were served late. It is not your gift to give to allow them, only the court can do this.

DefenCe. Not defense. UK spell check!

Loadsofchildren123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73392313#Comment_73392313