CEL PCN - Court Papers!!!

PinkFlamingo16

Hi all,

I have received court papers from CEL, totaling an amount of £328.64. (this includes a £25 court fee & £50 legal representatives costs).

I have already acknowledged the court papers, so have 28 days from 14/03/2018 to submit my appeal.

Long story short, I parked in a car park which had 30 mins free parking, however you must pay within 30 minutes, if you're staying longer. I was the other side of town after 25 minutes and tried to pay using the phone app. The app wouldn't recognise the location code and therefore wouldn't let me pay. About 1 hour later I tried to pay again and it worked. I paid for 2 hours parking & was in the car park for 1hr 42 minutes. However, CEL are saying I breached their conditions, but it was impossible to pay when the app wouldn't work, but I paid the full amount before I left.

During my POPLA appeal, I'm pretty sure I stated I was the driver, which now I understand I shouldn't have done.

This incident happened on 06/04/2017.

I have read through the FAQs, but am not sure which points apply to my case.

Could anyone help?

Kind Regards,

James.

KeithP

There are CEL Defences linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.
Pick the one that closest match to your scenario and tweek it to fit.

Find other CEL DEFENCEs by sticking those bold words in the forum's search facility. Do not consider anything more than say six months old.

Post your draft Defence here if you would like others to review your attempt before filing.

What is the Date of Issue on the court claim form?


Is that your surname you have used for your forum username?
That, together with your first name in your first post, is not a good idea.
You would be wise to get MSE to change it to something more anonymous.

This, from The MSE Forum Guide, may help:

Q. How can I change my username?
A. In most circumstances, this is not permitted.

The only reason we will change your username is if it puts your privacy at risk. This usually means you've inadvertently registered using your name, email address or something that gives away your identity within your username.

If you fall into this category, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com and request that it is changed, giving three alternative usernames in order of preference.

The_Deep

If this is for a singe ticket they are having a giraffe. Even if they paid the court fees and won, a judge is unlikely to award them more than £200. You may have breached their conditions, but did this so damage them they they need £100 to cover their (non-existent) loss? IMO the would struggle in court, especialy if the judge is aware of the scam as this is obviously a penalty.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor 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 lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

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 they will be out of business by Christmas. teir

Coupon-mad

James you can just copy a recent CEL defence. There's one in the NEWBIES thread.

Loadsofchildren123

Frustration of contract - impossibility of performance (you could not perform your obligation under the contract because they made it impossible, hence the contract was frustrated).


You made all reasonable attempts to pay, and did eventually pay.

I wouldn't be worried if you outed yourself as driver, your defence to this is a driver's defence (you parked, tried to pay but there was a fault on their system, you tried again...)


There is a rule somewhere in the CPR that says they should be giving you credit for the money you did pay, I doubt they've taken that off what they are trying to get out of you. You should quote that rule in your defence.

Get evidence of your attempts to pay - eg your phone bill showing the calls you made, or a screenshot of the calls on your mobile.


The good news is that when CEL cases are defended CEL discontinue (at the last minute). But the bad news is that you have to put in the legwork defending it.


Read this so you understand about how CEL work:


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74075959&postcount=18

PinkFlamingo16

Thanks for the response guys, I will read through the suggested defences and create a draft to post here.

System

Frustration of contract - impossibility of performance (you could not perform your obligation under the contract because they made it impossible, hence the contract was frustrated).

What did it say on the signs about eventualities that might cause "frustration". Some of these signs are getting quite good at covering "frustration" events.

Do you have a pic of the sign.

KeithP

PinkFlamingo16 wrote: »

Thanks for the response guys, I will read through the suggested defences and create a draft to post here.

Here's another idea...

Re-read the rest of the post I wrote on Wednesday.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74088561#Comment_74088561

Do we need all these exact same repeated CEL threads, can't we round them all up into one?!

PinkFlamingo16

I have requested a change in username, but still no amendment?

The court paper date is 14/03/18.

PinkFlamingo16

I am xxx, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle xxx.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

1. The Claim Form issued on the XXX March 2018 by Civil Enforcement Ltd 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 Claimant's 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 (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) and 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.

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

b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of draft particulars. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

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.
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.

3. 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 costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £328.64. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.

4. 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 without having been furnished with the alleged signage, none of this applies in this material case.

5. 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 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.
v. 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

6. No standing; this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
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.

7. 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.

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.

9. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant sent a letter claiming to be a final letter before court action, but then instead sent this to more debt collectors. As such the Claimants have artificially inflated the claim value by claiming to involve further debt collectors, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid

10. 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 XXXXXXX March 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.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.



xxxxxx
XXXXX April 2018

I have a few questions regarding this draft defence:

Should I include section 2.d, as I have responded previously, therefore I would be aware what the claim is about?

Should I state I tried to pay via the Phone App after 20 odd minutes. even though I have no evidence of this?

Should I state I cost them no loss in profit, even though I didn't pay within the first 30 minutes per terms and conditions.

Is section 4 & 5 relevant to my claims, due to there being plenty of clear signs?

I have heard people mention a 'letter before court'. I did receive a letter before the court papers, warning me they would issue court proceedings. What is the importance of this letter and is the one I received official/acceptable?