Parked on Private Property (QDR Solicitors)

soolin

All posts merged as requested.

greenbluegreen

Hey guys,

I will list the actual claim against and then put a re-write of my defence in a new reply, here we go:

Particulars of Claim :

Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge
for parking in a private car park managed
by the Claimant in breach of the terms +
conditions (T+Cs). Drivers are allowed to
park in accordance with T+Cs of use. ANPR
cameras and/or manual patrols are user to
monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site.
Debt + damages claimed the sum of 236.00
Violation date xx\xx\xxxx
Time in : 16:25 Time out : 16:50
PCN ref : XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Car registration n : XXXXXXX Car Park: (let me know if its safe to reveal)

Total due - 236.00
The Claimant claims the sum of 249.81 for
monies relating to a parking charge per above
including 13.81 interest pursuant to
S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984
Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to- xx/xx/xx
Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to Judgement - 0.05
Total debt and interest due - 249.81

Do you think that the above can be challenged for not valid/incorrect and put in my defence?

Regards,
Green

greenbluegreen

I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___.

1. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle on the material date but there is no evidence of who was driving. The defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

2. The Claim Form issued on the ____ 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 (Claimant's Legal Representative).

3. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And 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.

a) There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim under the Practice Direction.

b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

d) 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.

e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

4. 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 the Defendant 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 as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, mentioned a possible £249.81 for outstanding debt and interest.

5. 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 costs' were incurred. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

6. 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. None of this applies in this material case.

7. CEL is not contracted to the landowner nor does it have the legal capacity to issue claims.

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 alleged 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 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) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(iii) It is believed the signage 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

d) 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.

9. 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.

10. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.!

11. 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.

12. 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:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 16th March 2018.

(b) 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.

---

The above is a "mix and match" from recent Defences made by forum members dealing with CEL.

I think this is the closest that I could find relevant to my case (no permit). Please let me know if its too long or/and inaccurate.

Many thanks for your support, I am lost without your help.

Regards,
Green

Coupon-mad

Car Park: (let me know if its safe to reveal)

Yes, safe.

And that's a good example of a CEL defence. Make sure you put the usual claimant/defendant/claim number headings, and the word DEFENCE at the top.

Email it as a signed & dated document (scanned) attached to an email to the CCBCAQ email addy.

Here below, I've removed unnecessary words (and it should all be in the third person):

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

greenbluegreen

Thank you Coupon,

Just confirming, are these the correct emails to send my defence to? :

Ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk (sent to this address)

Ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk ( cc to this address)

Anything else I should keep an eye for?

Regards,
Green

Coupon-mad

Ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk ( cc to this address)

Nope. You don't cc anywhere else, except maybe yourself, to see that it sent!

Anything else I should keep an eye for?

Yes, read other CEL threads ahead of you and be ready for their letter and the DQ.

greenbluegreen

Hi guys,

Quick update:

I've sent the Defence to the email above. I am wondering if I should (and when) receive a confirmation that it is received?

Is it appropriate to phone them next week to check the status?

Regards,
Green

nosferatu1001

No, you do not get confirmation. Just ring them up.

greenbluegreen

Hi people.

I've sent my Defence on 26th of April.

The only correspondence so far is the response from Ccbcaq confirming that they've received it and forwarded to CEL for consideration.

Do I have to worry about not hearing from them?

Do I need to take action before is too late? I assume they have 28 days to respond as stated in the letter from Ccbcaq , after that period they will strike off the case.

Regards,
Green

Coupon-mad

Do nothing until the end of the month then ring the court and ask where your DQ is, or have CEL not confirmed that they are proceeding, in which case, re the CCBC about to strike the claim out?