CEL County Court Claim

CEHELL

Good Morning Everybody!

Didn't think CEL would chase so hard for this, but I received a County Court Claims Form 2 weeks ago whilst I was on holiday. I came back on Sunday and have opened it and have managed to fill in the AOS before the deadline (Issue date was 26th of February and I filed the AOS on the 12th of March).

The claim form has the particulars of claim already filled in (it won't let me post a link so maybe it will let me in the comments)

The particulars of the case are the driver was visiting a local gym to the area who have an agreement with the particular hotel to allow their customers to park, this was a new system in place and the driver was unaware of the new parking regulation. They've spoken to the gym and they say there is nothing they can do.

So going forward now and from reading the newbie thread I need to start putting together a defense, by looking through old threads (if anyone has any that will be of use to me please let me know).

I'm also tempted to contact the hotel and see if I can get them to remove it but with it being over a year ago and the first time I'll have been in contact I'm unsure this would work.

Just for reference (and so you can gauge / laugh at my stupidity) I ignored and have thrown away all notices, bailiff letters, solicitors letters etc, so I'm not sure if that helps at all.

Thank in advance for all your help and this great forum!

The_Deep

They invariably cry wolf at the courtroom steps.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/civil-enforcement-limited-discontinue.html

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose) and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

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.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

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.

CEHELL

The_Deep wrote: »

They invariably cry wolf at the courtroom steps.

I'm hoping they will, 14 days to get something in writing and back to them!

Umkomaas

CEHELL wrote: »

I'm hoping they will, 14 days to get something in writing and back to them!

You have 33 days from the date of issue on the court claim form - 28 days plus 5 days for service. But best not sail too close to the wind on deadlines.

I need to start putting together a defense

I'd start putting together a defence, unless you plan to nominate a courtroom location in the USA for your hearing.

CEHELL

Umkomaas wrote: »

You have 33 days from the date of issue on the court claim form - 28 days plus 5 days for service. But best not sail too close to the wind on deadlines.

Thanks, I'll give myself the week to get it drafted.


I'd start putting together a defence, unless you plan to nominate a courtroom location in the USA for your hearing.

Well at least when I win I'll have some nice costs to claim back!

The_Deep

Only if they behave unreasonably, the judge thinks that they have behaved unreasonably, and you can argue the hind leg off a donkey.

http://becket-chambers.co.uk/2017/05/24/acid-test-unreasonable-acts-unreasonable-behaviour-costs-small-claims-track/

Computersaysno

Excelleny link, deep

CEHELL

So continuing to read the information on the Newbies thread! (There's so much).

In the Particulars of Claims all I have is ...

Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the 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 and exiting the site. Debt + damages claimed the sum of £236.00
Violation date : xx/xx/2017
Time in 18:03 Time out 19:00
PCN reference Refxxxxxxxx
Car reg - xxxxxxx
Car Park - Place name.

Total Due £236.00
Then some references to amounts and interest.

Is this all I should receive or will there be addition info to follow? - any ideas anyone?

nosferatu1001

You know whether you will receive more - it will have said "further particlaurs of claim to follow within 14 days"
If it doesnt, there is going to be nothing more

You dont need more howegver. Just find a CEL defence from April 2017 onwards, and adapt to your details.

CEHELL

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

You know whether you will receive more - it will have said "further particlaurs of claim to follow within 14 days"
If it doesnt, there is going to be nothing more

You dont need more howegver. Just find a CEL defence from April 2017 onwards, and adapt to your details.

It doesn't, so thanks! I'll have a search around!

CEHELL

How's this looking as a first draft?

In the County Court Business Centre

Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited
vs
xxxxxxxxxx

Regarding claim number xxxxxxxxxx

I xxxxxxxxxxxx deny that I am liable to the claimant for the entirety of this claim for each of the following reasons:
1. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case.
2. The signage is not adequate and does not offer a contract with the motorist.
4. Claim not correctly filed under The Practice Direction
5. Falsified solicitor costs
6. Claimant failed to meet Notice to Keeper obligations


1. The claimant has no standing to bring a case.

a. The particulars of claim state that !!!8220;At all material times, the Claimant managed the car park.!!!8221; They are therefore acting as agents of the landowner.

b. It is believed Civil Enforcement Ltd 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.

2. The claimant claims that the defendant is in breach of the T&Cs in which drivers are allowed to park in condition with. But the signage does not offer a contract and is also poorly light.

a. The signage at the sign entrance is sparse, with no mention of the terms and conditions of the car park or the penalty of breaching the terms, violating POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice.

b. The small print on the signage does not allow the driver of any vehicle to read the terms and conditions of the car park until they are already in the car park and have been photographed by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera. There is no opportunity to make a decision not to enter the car park after reading the signs.

c. The alleged contract is unfair, not agreed by the driver, and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation'.

d. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer neither known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

e. 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 !!!8220;contract!!!8221;, none of this applies in this material case.


4. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) by;

a. Not providing a copy of the alleged contract to the Defendant. This prevents a full defence being filed at this time as 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.

b. Failing to issue a compliant notice to keeper within 14 days under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 such that Claimant is unable to hold the Defendant liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions.

c. Issuing a sparse, mail-merged and non-compliant !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217;, under the Practice Direction. 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 contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017).

d. A Schedule of information sparse of detailed information.

5. The Claim Form issued on 26/02/2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as;

a. It was not signed by a legal person but signed by !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221; (claimants legal representative).

b. It failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 26/02/2018.

c. 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.

d. 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 disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

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.

Once these particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

6. The claim includes a sum of £50, described as !!!8216;Legal representative!!!8217;s costs!!!8217;. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant. Given a standard working week, the claimant!!!8217;s legal representative can spend no more than a few minutes per claim, hardly justifying the £50. Since these are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant maintains case notes for each person who has accessed the case, and it is suggested this would be sufficient. The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen!!!8217;s Letter Patent (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no !!!8216;expert services!!!8217; are involved. The £50 is not valid because it is not incurred by the claimant.

7. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absence of 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. Additionally, the Claimant has been known in other cases to specifically state during the appeal period, that they would not be relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, waiving their right to seek keeper liability. The Defendant is not therefore liable for the claim and invites the court to strike it out. 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 a registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.