I've got a County Court Claim for a 2yr old PCN

Sniffa

I need some advice please.

I received a Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement Ltd in May 2016 related to parking at a Sports Club on 21/4/2016 and requesting that I pay a £60 charge (increasing to £100 after 14 days).

I responded immediately in writing to Civil Enforcement explaining that there must have been an error as, although at the time I was taking my son to the A&E department of the hospital, I was authorised to park there, because my son was a member of the Sports Club. At the time I was unaware that the car parking system had recently changed and drivers needed to enter their details onto a terminal in the clubhouse, which I would have done had I been aware.

6 months later I received a letter from a company called ZZPS Ltd related to this incident and stating that I owed £200 (surely it should have been £100 at most?).

I again responded explaining the circumstances and requested that they cancel the PCN. I thought that was the end of the matter as I have heard nothing since from either company.

Now, a further 18 months later, I find that Civil Enforcement Ltd is taking me to court for £271.54 plus costs of £75.

What can I do?

pogofish

Post two of the Newbies Sticky will set you on the way - Post back here when you have something together for further help.

Also read post four, which will explain why you were a complete fool to contact ZZPS - This probably is what marked you out as a hooked fish to be reeled-in.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another 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.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for CEL defence and read all the others...do the same as everyone else!

Sniffa

In the County Court Business Centre
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited V xxxx

Claim Number: xxxx

I am xxxx, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle xxxx. I currently reside at xxxx.
I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
1. The Claim Form issued on the 12th March 2017 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” (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017).
a. There was no complaint “Letter before County Court Claim”, under the Practice Direction.
b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of “draft particulars”.
c. There has been nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the “Letter before County Court Claim” should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, 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. 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).
iv. Support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided”.

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.


!!!8195;
Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars with Practice Directions and include at least the following information:
i. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage) detailing how it affects members of the Sports Club.
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 a reasonable time to file another defence.

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 me liable under the strict “keeper liability” provisions.
a. 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.

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 additional costs were incurred.

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. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the particulars of this 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.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage 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 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, neither 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.

7. No standing – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
a. 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.

8. 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.

10. 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 exact details of a situation when a car was parked nearly 2 years previously (although I have given what details I can remember below). 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.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
1. Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 11th October 2017.
2. 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.
3. The insufficient 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.


Should I include these details?
I received a Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement Ltd issued on 10th May 2016 related to parking at xxx Sports Club on 21/4/2016 (issued outside of the required 14 day period) and requesting that I pay a £60 charge (increasing to £100 after 14 days).

I responded immediately in writing to Civil Enforcement explaining that there must have been an error as, although at the time I was taking my child to the A&E department of the hospital, I was authorised to use the car park, because we were legitimate members of the club as my son played cricket for them.

Now, 2 years months later, I find that Civil Enforcement Ltd is taking me to court for £271.54 plus costs of £75. I refute that the initial £60 was a legitimate charge, as explained above and therefore request that the court find that there is no case to answer.

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

Sniffa

Particulars of Claim, as detailed on the form:-

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: 21/4/2016
Time in: 16:29 Time out: 17:51
PCN Ref: xxx
Car reg: xxxxxxx
Car Park:- xxxx Sports Club

Total due – 236.00 (Ref: ceserevice url or Tel 01158225020)
The claimant claims the sum of 271.54 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 35.54 interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984
Rate 8%pa from dates above to 9/3/18
Same rate to judgment or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to judgment- 0.05
Total debt and interest due:- 271.54

The_Slithy_Tove

Did you ever complain to the sports club? Could have saved you a whole lot of aggro.

Le_Kirk

There was no complaint Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction.

Do you mean compliant?

Sniffa

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Did you ever complain to the sports club? Could have saved you a whole lot of aggro.

They told me I would have to contact the parking company.

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

I currently reside at xxxx.

12th March 2017

Should be 2018


Fed up with seeing this again:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73943093#Comment_73943093

Is that defence in the NEWBIES thread? I must remove it and replace it. Fed up with Groundhog Day!

Sniffa

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Remove this:

Should be 2018

Changed, thanks

Fed up with seeing this again:



Is that defence in the NEWBIES thread? I must remove it and replace it. Fed up with Groundhog Day!

So have I copied and edited the wrong defence? I think I took it from another CEL thread.