CEL Civil Enforcement Ltd County Court Business Claim received ANPR Camera Photos 26min overstay

Technetium43

Hi everyone, first time poster here, big fan of your work,


Background:
Bit of a pickle to sort here - CEL have submitted a claim against the vehicle keeper (that's me) with Northampton County Court business centre. It is in relation to an overstay of 26mins in a car park where they claim the free stay period is 2.5 hours. They apparently had ANPR cameras monitoring the council leisure centre car park - according to their claim, the time in and time out are separated by just under 3 hours (176 mins).


Initial contact following the parking overstay was by CEL by post, and subsequent letters all ignored right up until their County Court Claim arrived on the doorstep. I have responded to this with the acknowledgement form posted, which extends period to prepare my defence to 28 days (verified a couple of days after they receive the letter, by checking on the moneyclaim website mentioned on the form)


At time of this post, there is about a week remaining to prepare the defence and submit (which I intend to do online).


Summary of their harassing letters which were all ignored (censored copies all available digitally on request):

1. PCN (Parking Charge Notice with photos of the vehicle entering/exiting the car park - issued 6 days after the 'incident') : £60 if paid in 14 days, or £100 in 28 days.
2. PCN Final Reminder (received 49 days / 7 full weeks after the 'incident'): £100 due now
3. LBA with draft claim from CEL (12 weeks after 'incident'): Outstanding Debt £140 - they list in 9 detailed paragraphs the draft particulars of their claim.
4. ZZPS Ltd (15 weeks after the 'incident'): "Balance owed is £200 and now includes late payment and debt recovery charges"
5. ZZPS Ltd (16 weeks after the 'incident'): "Parking Charge: £140. Administration Fees £60" - "our next course of action is to pass this account to QDR Solicitors Ltd...advise you that if this does get passed to QDR...the balance owing will increase by £30 plus VAT"
6. QDR Solicitors (20 weeks after the 'incident'): "Outstanding Balance £236"
7. QDR Solicitors (22 weeks after the 'incident'): letter basically saying if not paid in 14 days, their client might seek a County Court Judgment (CCJ) against. "will remain on the Register for 6 years...this may impact on your ability to obtain future credit..."
8. CEL Ltd letter (received 27 weeks after the 'incident') offering final opportunity to settle debt £236. "if we do not receive a reply within 30 days...[we will] issue proceedings in the County Court".

Just over 30 days later, as per their word, CEL filed and the County Court Claim Form was issued (this is now 34 weeks after the 'incident') and this I have Acknowledged as already mentioned.


That's all for background; please see my draft defence below the line (based on an amalgam of several other very helpful CEL defence threads).
I would much appreciate your help in tweaking it up to the best it can be and some key questions are in red below. I have the energy to go all the way with these guys. I will post everything back in an anonymized way.
Bring it.


On behalf of the wealth creators,
Yours faithfully,
Technetium43





In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number XXXX
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v XXXX


DEFENCE




The Claim Form issued on the ##/##/2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. < They signed it with a computer typed line "Civil Enforcement Limited - (Claimant's Legal Representative". Also can I really begin with this given CEL is a 'company' and therefore a legal 'person'?>


The Defendant as keeper of the vehicle denies they are 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/ The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
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."


3/ 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.
(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 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.




<In their (draft) particulars of claim, CEL have stated they have a lengthy contract in place for this car park, so perhaps I should remove this next paragraph?>
4/ 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.


5/ 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.


6/ 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.


7/ 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.


8/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge via their third party assistant litigation representatives, whom, in correspondence dated 12 Jan 2018 and referencing the associated "Parking Charge Notice" number, stated a "Parking Charge 'Charge': £140.00" and "Administration Fees: £60.00". Subsequent correspondence dated 19 Feb 2018 states an "Outstanding Balance: £236.00". <is this next sentence ok please?> The Defendant puts to the Claimant an accusation it is not feasible that £60 administrative fees were incurred. The Defendant denies 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 XXXX
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 XXXX

beamerguy

So, after all the letters most of which from very
dodgy debt collectors, did CEL comply with the new
claims procedure in their final letter

Did CEL give you proof of their claim and whilst they
did something after 30 days, it is for you to have 30
days to respond, not for them to use the 30 days
to issue proceedings

I guess you have read up on CEL and indeed the very
poor claims they enter in court.

Read up ON CEL now
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=CEL

You will see that they have a nasty little habit of
discontinuing cases at the last moment.

The main CEL win is if the defendant fails to go to
court so you must follow this through

The_Deep

Surely, imposing a time limit of 2.5 hours at a leisure centre is unreasonable, is there a restaurant, swimming pool, gym? If this is the case them, imo, the terms of the contract are unfair. Does the leisure centre impose such time limits?

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.

Coupon-mad

Don't look to remove sections of the defence we know sees CEL discontinue.

there is about a week remaining to prepare the defence and submit (which I intend to do online).

No, you won't be doing this on MCOL. On here, email is always used to send the signed/dated defence to the CCBCAQ email.

Have a look at the CEL defence where LoadsofChildren123 replied last week to try to improve the template. LOC123 is a solicitor and you can find her posts by clicking on her name, look for the CEL one with the re-written defence.

Technetium43

Coupon-mad, many thanks: I have just now read LoadsofChildren123's replies to the CEL court letter thread which I'm sure will assist with my redraft of defence.



My next step is to post a letter (tonight) to CEL with a request offering them 10 days to send me a full copy of their "particulars of defence" [over and above the obfuscated text they've entered on the court Claim Form (censored copy avail. on request)] prior to submission of my defence.


The Deep; I completely agree the parking companies are behaving like scammers when they chase such large fines for accidental/unintentional overstays. I'll be up for writing to the MP for the county in question where the car park is.



Beamerguy, appreciate the link, thanks, and I'll definitely be going to court. Already planning to make a nice day trip out of it and prepare reasonable costs to claim against CEL.

The_Deep

I'll be up for writing to the MP for the county in question where the car park is.

No, you write to your own M.P.

Technetium43

Dear all,


A small progress update; the county court issued an order that the Claim be Automatically struck out, unless CEL submitted an amended Particulars - which CEL subsequently did, and at great length as a Witness statement (would anyone be able to have a look at it?), along with a reduced offer of settlement of £100 if paid within 14 days...


I have not replied as yet.



A helpful colleague this week recommended I DO respond to the reduced offer of settlement by CEL, to refute the offer with valid reasons, and copying in the court - to show willingness to engage with the Claimant - though tbh I'm not sure it is necessary.



Does anyone have thoughts on this approach, please? (court date must be approaching soon, though nothing confirmed in the post yet...)



Does anyone know a good legal representative? I'm more than happy to pay for legal representation to get maximum out of CEL possible - for me, I'm keen to use this as a learning experience, though my goodness how much time and effort it takes.

The_Deep

Why should you show willingness to engage with a scammer. What they are doing will almost certainly be made illegal if Sir Greg's bill is passed.

Does anyone know a good legal representative? I'm more than happy to pay for legal representation to get maximum out of CEL possible

That maximum is unlikely to be very much, judges are very reluctant to award really worthwhile damages against these scammers. People here are congratulating a poster who screwed a PPC for £1750, not a lot for a company with assets of nearly £1.5 million.

Umkomaas

People here are congratulating a poster who screwed a PPC for £1750, not a lot for a company with assets of nearly £1.5 million.

And the bar for that was set at a pretty high level.

The small claims court really is not the place to attempt to seek punitive damages - unless you can put together a massive case against the PPC. The level of 'unreasonableness' has to be high and proven. There have been a number of court cases recently where the PPC/their solicitors seem to have behaved badly (IMHO), yet the Judge would have nothing to do with any kind of counterclaim.

The (realistic) best you'd get - with or without a sol representing you - is £95 (max) for half a day's loss of earnings/loss of leave, mileage @ 45p per mile, car parking on the day of the hearing (£5?). At a big push, if you can convince the Judge that you have been put to enormous amounts of work in defending this as a result of the PPC messing you about, maybe a couple of hours for research as a litigant in person @ £19 per hour and possibly a small amount towards stationery and postage (£10?). That really is about it.

As The Deep says, even a 4-figure award is going to be nothing more than an itch to scratch for an organisation that turns over multi-millions per year.

You won't bring them to their knees!

The_Deep

I agree, if you engage a solicitor you are likely to end up severely out of pocket. What is needed is sanctions against the solicitors who take on these time wasting cases.

Technetium43

Dear all, an update is due to you since, as of today this case is ~2 to 4 weeks away from likely court date.

The county court location has been set, but no date I don't think as yet (I'm expecting it to come up within 20 weeks of June).

In the meantime, to bring you up to speed, the county court wrote an order saying they'd throw out the case unless Claimant (CEL) filed a revised Particulars of Claim...

CEL has as of August filed a Witness Statement, and at length; it's a ~20 paragraphs beast document with scanned signature from Ashley Cohen...
Attached was a cover letter addressed to me (Defendent) offering an out of court settlement reduced back to £100 (small victory, see the original inflated list of their charges etc). To clarify, I have no intention of settling.

CEL in September, 3 days before the County Court's deadline, filed an Amended Particulars of Claim, along with a return to the inflated costs ~£250 - I believe this timing was done by CEL to maximise the negative emotional effect on Defendent (me), as perhaps they expect people would be crossing their fingers it would all just go away.
{Beamerguy, this I believe answers your query of 16th June}

---

My impression was it is ok for me to ignore CEL's offer letter because CEL is simply not on the same page at all, so why bother? A helpful/well meaning colleague of mine suggested it would look better in the eyes of the court if I DO reply to the counter-offer, even if to refute CEL's claim of breach of parking terms, to at least show engagement in the process. I'm still thinking this is unnecessary.

1) Does anyone have an opinion on this?
2) Should I be writing an amended Defence to court in response to its' (CEL's) enlarged Particulars of Claim / Witness Statement ? and add items I haven't raised previously?
3) Also, should I now look to engage the services of a legal representative?

Thank you,