CEL Defence Statement Advice Please

slou1983

Hi all,

thanks so much for the information. Received a fine last Feb after driving into a car park to turn around and being stuck so unable to exit (due to a brick archway and a poorly parked car. Stayed for 16 minutes until was able to be guided out. Signage was only visible on entry. Never exited the vehicle or turned off the engine.

I have put this together, please could somebody look over it before I send. Thanks ever so much.



In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number E6GM711Q
Between: Civil Enforcement Limited
Defence Statement

I am the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle. I currently reside at

The Claim Form issued on the 19TH February 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 “Civil Enforcement Limited-Claimant’s Legal Representative”.

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

1/ 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.

2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
(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.
(c) Further requests for information were ignored via email and telephone.


3/ I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under 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.
Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

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 as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £254.98 for outstanding debt and damages.

4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) 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. These signs can only be seen once entered and during the day.
(b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
(e) Driver did not park or exit the vehicle. Engine remained running throughout the stay. Driver could not exit the vehicle due to poor parking in the car park and had to wait to be guided out due to overcrowding and poor parking by other vehicles. At no point was the vehicle exited or parked, as stated.



5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.


7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.
.

8/ 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.

9/ 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/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr Cohen is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated 1st December 2016 are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

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 19th February 2018.
(b) failed to respond to correspondance from the Defendant dated 27th July 2017 requesting further information and details of the claim and then a subsequent request, dated 23rd December 2017 following correspondence 5 months later after not replying to the initial request.

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 believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Signed
Date
Quick Reply Thanks 0

Coupon-mad

DEFENCE

NOT 'statement'.

Seeing as it's not signed by Mr Cohen, and it wasn't in 2016, you need to amend your defence to make sense:

If Mr Cohen is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated 1st December 2016

You should read the more recent CEL defences all over recent pages, you just need to read a few.

Fruitcake

Point 6 is missing.

nosferatu1001

INdeed, you need april 2017 or later. NOTHING from 2016 for sure.

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.