PCN at defence writing stage, KFC (CE Ltd) Bolton.

MartinMR21987

Evening ladies and gents.
Long story short, our car was issued with a Parking Charge Notice while parked at the KFC car park in Bolton.
The driver discloses they hadn't seen the signs of the parking restrictions.
The PCN was issued via a ANPR system.
We appealed directly to Civil Enforcement LTD (via email -as PCN states) within the time frame put forward by CE LTD and even received an automated response verifying receipt of the email.
CE LTD failed to respond however. Which meant no POPLA code. We could therefore not appeal via an "independent" source.
Various letters/emails to and from various companies (CE LTD, ZZPS LTD,Wright Hassall) and we have the County Court Buisness Centre claim form posted to us.

My Partners defence (as keeper) is a fairly simple one and we intend to forward it across tomorrow evening. I suggested posting it up here first however to see if there is anything extra you guys would add or amend. Thanks

Northampton County Court Business Centre. Claim Number: Number


Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant)
Vs
Owner of VRN (Name) (Defendant)



Date: 21st February 2018



DEFENCE



I, Name, the owner of vehicle VRN deny liability for this case and all particulars of the claim, post the initial appeal stage.

Upon first contact from the claimant, I followed all protocols put in place by the claimant, who subsequently has breached the implied contract (as set by section 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) by failing to respond to the initial appeal. This includes failing to provide a POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeal) code resulting in failing to allow an independent appeal process, also a breach of implied contract (described below).

All sent and received correspondence between myself and the claimant, including the claimants process-furthering companies and partners, will be included as evidence.


I also deny liability wholly due to the claimant breaching Schedule 4; Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (c.9); the same act which the claimant is authorised to enforce parking contraventions.


As per Paragraph 9, (2), (e). "State that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper -
(i) To pay the unpaid parking charge; or
(ii) If the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for the service for the driver and to pass the notice to the driver."

As per parking charge notice, issued date, the claimant failed on this paragraph wholly. No attempt to distinguish the driver of the vehicle was made for the time of the PCN.



Paragraph 9, (8). "In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes -
(a) Any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b) Any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration."

The appeals process, as above, is listed on the PCN. However, the claimant failed to respond, inciting failure of the above paragraph.

The claim form sent to me, issued on Date by Civil Enforcement Ltd, was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person, but signed by "Civil Enforcement Limited".



Statement of Truth.
I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.

To the Court and the Claimant.


Signed
Name
of
Address




Cheers in advance guys.
Im unsure what else to add, if anything. Also, our (now 1 year old) likes to press the keys on the laptop so if you see anything out of place, do feel free to highlight it. As much as I check and re-check, I've likely missed something.
Thanks

KeithP

Please edit your post to avoid giving away clues to the identity of the driver.

Why do people post such incriminating stuff then logoff immediately?

Coupon-mad

I think, start again and the named defendant simply copies a CEL one from threads here.

MartinMR21987

Ah,
Fair point. Thanks.
I thought I'd re-worked that to avoid such things... Suppose not eating for 2 days due to some novo-virus type sickness diminishes capacity to see clearly.

Not 100% sure I've gotten everything.

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.[/FONT]

KeithP

More editing of post #1 needed Martin.

You second two sentences should perhaps look something like:

Long story short, our car was issued with a Parking Charge Notice while parking at the KFC car park.
The driver discloses she hadn't seen the signs of the parking restrictions.

Please understand this is not petty pedantry.

The parking companies trawl forums like this just waiting for someone to trip themselves up.

MartinMR21987

A quick question.

I was under the impression (unsure if correctly or not), that a defence could be uploaded via pdf to the MCOL website. Is this true.

I'm not attempting to upload the current listed defence btw, its been heavily modified since yesterday (to be uploaded in a new post shortly).

Anyway, there is a 122 line limit using the MCOL website (as you guys likely know ).
I still have time to print and sent if need be, but would prefer to do everything online if there is a way.
The MCOL website wont let me passed the defence section (didn't want to leave it until last minute to find this stuff out -good job) without writing something in those 122 lines.

Thanks again all

KeithP

Have you read Bargpole's walkthough linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread?

In there you will see that it definitely is not a good idea to submit your defence via MCOL and the reasons why.

Put absolutely nothing in the Defence box on MCOL - not even a full stop.

Instead email it as a pdf attachment to the ccbcaq email address - can easily be found.

Your defence must be signed before sending.

Post your Defence here for review if you wish before sending.

Coupon-mad

Need to read the NEWBIES thread. There is no such question as a new question here!

MartinMR21987

Current defence, to be neatened up a bit but content ready for you guys with better knowledge than me to pick up on bits i've done badly (I can take it )


Northampton County Court Business Centre. Claim Number: #######
PCN Ref: ########

Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant)
Vs
Keeper of ####### (#################) (Defendant)
Date: ## February 2018

DEFENCE

I, #########, the keeper of vehicle ####### deny liability for this case and all particulars of the claim, post the initial appeal stage.
Upon first contact from the claimant, I followed all protocols put in place by the claimant, who subsequently has breached the implied contract (as set by section 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012), by failing to respond to the initial appeal. This includes failing to provide a POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeal) code resulting in failing to allow an independent appeal process, also a breach of implied contract (described below).
All sent and received correspondence between myself and the claimant, including the claimants process-furthering companies and partners, will be included as evidence.

I also deny liability wholly due to the claimant breaching Schedule 4; Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (c.9); the same act which the claimant is authorised to enforce parking contraventions.

As per Paragraph 9, (2), (e). "State that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper -
(i) To pay the unpaid parking charge; or
(ii) If the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for the service for the driver and to pass the notice to the driver."
As per parking charge notice, issued ##/##/####, the claimant failed on this paragraph wholly. No attempt to distinguish the driver of the vehicle was made for the time of the PCN.

Paragraph 9, (8). "In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes -
(a) Any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b) Any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration."
The appeals process, as above, is listed on the PCN. However, the claimant failed to respond, inciting failure of the above paragraph.

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 the signs failed to mention a possible additional £###.## for outstanding debt and damages.

The Claim Form issued on ##/##/#### by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221;.

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, 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 by 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.

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.


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 without having been furnished with the alleged signage 'contract', none of this applies in this material case.

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.

Statement of Truth.
I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
To the Court and the Claimant.

######### (Defendant)
of
#############

KeithP

MartinMR21987 wrote: »

Current defence, to be neatened up a bit (doesn't help copy and paste from MS Word isn't directly compatible, but hey'ho)

Not a good idea to copy directly from Word:

Warning: Do not copy and paste content from Word, PDFs etc into your posts

So not only might it upset the formatting, you could find your username banned. :eek:

Then you have the hassle signing up again - but with the difficulty of needing a new IP address. :eek:

If you don't know what that means, it's probably best avoided.