Civil Enforcement Claim Form -HELP!!

mcgovern01

Hi all,

Help needed please with CE Claim form. I have a couple of days left so looking for some quick advice! Have had some help from BMPA but they are away this week! The signage is very bad at the site and there is no notice of ANPR use that I can see. Unfortunately as a Newbie I cannot post pics!

The claim form does have some "Particulars of Claim' details as follows: (Some details redacted where XX appears..)

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 236.00 Violation date: XX/XX/2017
Time in: XX:XX Time out: XX:XX
PCN ref: Ref XXXXXXXXXX
Car registration no.: XXXXXXX
Car park:! XXXXXX Retail Park

Total due- 236.00
The Claimant claims the sum of 252.60 for
monies relating to a parking charge per above
including 16.60 interest pursuant to
S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984
Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to- 29/01/18 Same rate to Judgment or {sooner) payment
Daily rate to Judgment- 0.05
Total debt and interest due- 252.60

This was signed by: Civil Enforcement Limited


Text for defence submission

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 XXXXXX 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 Civil Enforcement Limited as the Claimants’ 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 Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.

5. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as 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;
(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
(vi) ANPR evidence showing driver, and clearly time and date stamped.
Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.


7. 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 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 occurrence, and this was not received.

8. 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. I also deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

9. 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.

10. 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.
10a) 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.
10b) 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.
10c) 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.

11. 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: ________________




Any help would be very welcome!

Quentin

If you have inadvertently used your real name as your board name then you need to get mse to change it to something truly anaonymous


The ppcs monitor this forum and can use posts against you

mcgovern01

I haven’t, but thanks for your thoughtful advice!

Coupon-mad

Same advice as this one about removing wording not needed:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5798564

and this one tells you how to submit the defence by email attachment to the ccbcaq address:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73847073#Comment_73847073

HTH

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]

mcgovern01

Can anyone please tell me if my defence is OK to send? It is due in tomorrow!!

KeithP

mcgovern01 wrote: »

Can anyone please tell me if my defence is OK to send? It is due in tomorrow!!

Did you see Coupon-mad's post? Post #4?

Have you actioned her suggestions?

If so, it's good to go. - as a signed pdf attachment to an email to the ccbcaq email address.

mcgovern01

I did delete that section, yes. Thanks for your quick reply, much appreciated!
I will post my amended defence here shortly for anyone to comment, but it will be sent later this evening if I hear nothing else!

mcgovern01

I actually had my dates wrong, I have a day or so to submit. However having read extensively over the last week, I think i have this about right! If anyone can see any errors please let me know as soon as possible.

thanks!


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 XXXXXX 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 Civil Enforcement Limited as the Claimants’ 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.

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

b. 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.

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.

2e. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

3. 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 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 occurrence, and this was not received.

4. 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. I also deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

5. 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.

6. 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.

6a) 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.
6b) 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.
6c) 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.


7. 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) Non-compliant with paragraph 18.8 - no BPA logo visible on any sign on the site.

8. 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 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 Feb 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 to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed: ___________________________ Date: ________________

KeithP

You say the Claim Form was issued on 16 Feb.
If you have acknowledged service, then you have until some date in the middle of March to deliver your Defence - thirty-three days from 16 February.

In fact you still have a day or so to do the AoS if you haven't already done it.

mcgovern01

apologies KeithP, that was copied and paste from someone else's defence! Mine was issued on 30th January 2018.

I have submitted the defence as above but with that date amended.

Thanks