CEL Defence Statement

Trina.lawrence1

I've been sent the Claim Form on behalf of Civil Enforcement Ltd. I have done the Acknowledgement of Service and have been working on my defence. See below for my defence and please give any advice you have to offer.

Civil Enforcement Limited v ********

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

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 16/02/2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221; as the Claimant!!!8217;s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. An example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for an overstay, 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 Claimant is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information and are very vague.

4. The Letter Before Claim is very vague as to what the outstanding debt is in relation to and offers no breakdown of costs.

5. The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Particulars of Claim did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs, merely stating the use of ANPR.

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

7. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
(i) Whether the matter is being brought for overstay, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge.
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) If charges over and above the initial charge 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.

8. 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 !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 also states that if no physical Parking Charge Notice was placed on the vehicle, the Parking Charge Notice must be served within 14 days of the incident occurence, however in this case, it was served after this period.

9. 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!!!8217;s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I also deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

10. 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.

11. 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.
11a) 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.
11b) 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.
11c) 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.

11d) 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) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.
(iii) Non-compliant with paragraph 18.8 - no BPA logo visible on any sign on the site.

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

Signed: ___________________________ Date: ________________

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]