Civil Enforcement Ltd MCOL

pcn18

Hi Guys,

I have been a member here for a long time but i've had to open a new account as my full name is username.

Apologies for the likely duplicated post but we've just had a newborn baby and my head is battered from very little sleep and i need to get this sorted before going back to work next week.

I've got an Claim Form from Civil Enforcement Ltd, it states:

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 used to monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site.
Debt + damages claimed the sum of £123.45

Violation date: xx/05/2017
Time in: 17:30 Time out: 20:17. (changed but time difference is the same)
PCN ref: Ref12345678
Car registration no.: AB12CED
Car park: Fast Food Carpark (Totally empty when i parked, and i didn't see the signs)

Total due- 123.45 ,
(Ref:ce-serv ice.co.uk] or Tel:01158225020)

The Claimant claims the sum of 123.45 for
monies relating to a parking charge per above
including 12.34 interest pursuant to

8.69 of the County Courts Act 1984

Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to- xx/xx/18

Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to Judgment- 0.05
Total debt and interest due- 123.45

I saw this post and parts of it are applicable but others are not.

CEL Claim Defence - Almost ready to submit I think

Many thanks in advance.

D.

nosferatu1001

Ok first thing - newbies thread. Read it properly.

First step will be to go online and complete the AoS. Instructions in the newbies thread. This gives you 33 days to compile your defence, and to print sign scan to pdf and EMAIL to the court.

What!!!8217;s the issue date ? That!!!8217;s the date your 33 days is calculated from.

The_Deep

£360 is ridubulous. Have they overreached themselves I ask.

[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]

Quentin

You say you duplicated this post under a different name. You can delete your other post!

(Who is Dean B...... you now mention?)

pcn18

Quentin wrote: »

You say you duplicated this post under a different name. You can delete your other post!

(Who is Dean B...... you now mention?)

Who? Never heard of him.

pcn18

Hi Guys,

I have done the AOS, the template i've found thats close to what i need is this:

I, xxxxx xxxxx, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
!!!8226; The Claim Form issued on xx/xx/2018 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;.

!!!8226; 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.!!!8232;
a There was no compliant !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217;, under the Practice Direction.!!!8232;
b This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.!!!8232;
c The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.!!!8232;
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. !!!8232;The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217; should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction !!!8211; Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to !!!8220;take stock!!!8221;, 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:
i !!!8216;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
ii 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
iii 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
iv support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.!!!8217;
v
e 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.!!!8232;
f 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 trespass, 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 Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
vi If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.!!!8232;
g Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.!!!8232;
!!!8226; 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 !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions.!!!8232;!!!8232;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 £236 for outstanding debt and damages.!!!8232;
!!!8226; 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!!!8217; were incurred.

!!!8226; 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.!!!8232;
!!!8226; 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.!!!8232;
!!!8226; No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!!!8232;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.!!!8232;
!!!8226; 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.!!!8232;
!!!8226; 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.

!!!8226; 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:

!!!8226; Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on xx xx 2018.

!!!8226; 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.

Lamilad

You need to format this properly to avoid the wall of text you have going on. Read Bargepole's guidelines linked in NEWBIES.

Edit the para below, as shown, to remove superfluous text:

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.!!!8232;
[STRIKE]!!!8226; 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.!!!8232;
!!!8226; No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!!!8232;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.!!!8232;
!!!8226; 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.!!!8232;
!!!8226; 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.[/STRIKE]

Add the para about deficient signage and cop compliance from the johnersh defence linked in NEWBIES

Lamilad

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.

I would also edit this para to simply mention HG comment about no reasonable presumption, don't mention you recollection of the event or drivers. Add the edited para after your para about pofa compliance

pcn18

HG comment?

Add the para about deficient signage and cop compliance from the johnersh defence linked in NEWBIES

I don't understand what you mean, i've only got till friday to respond.

Coupon-mad

The residential defence example, written by Johnersh, that you saw when you read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQS thread, or we would hope you did.

KeithP

pcn18 wrote: »

HG comment?

Probably means Henry Greenslade's comment.

pcn18 wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean, i've only got till friday to respond.

It means you go to the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread post #2 and find the link to johnersh's defence and lift the paragraphs that talk about deficient signage and cop compliance and paste them into your defence.

As you only have until Friday you need to get cracking.
Lamilad offered his comments last Sunday.

Back in February you were asked for the issue date on the Claim Form. Can you please tell us that?