CEL defence opinions PLEASE

Mellynelly123

To cut a long story short, I like everyone else have received a court form from CEL. I tried to appeal to them directly to stop this going to court (RESOLVER advised and said I needed their appeal response) but obviously they declined and now know I was the driver. I have read dozens of templates. Would just like someone to read over and check its a decent amount as I've read some people say add more and others to write less. Ps is it better to put in defence straight away or closer to date? Thank you in advance (I literally am a hare in headlights)



Claim Number:***
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v ***
!!!12288;
Defence Statement
I *** the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ***. I currently reside at ***


The Claim Form issued on the *** by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by "The Legal Team".


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.
!!!12288;
2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a)There was no compliant !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217;, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information.
(b)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.
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 £236.00 for outstanding debt and damages.
!!!12288;
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.
(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.
!!!12288;
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.
!!!12288;
6/ 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.
!!!12288;
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.
!!!12288;
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.
!!!12288;
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.
!!!12288;
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 *** are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.
!!!12288;
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 ***.
(b)failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** requesting further information and details of the claim as no previous letter were received.
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.
!!!12288;
I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
!!!12288;
Signed
Date

Redx

basic comments



1) its DEFENCE , not DEFENCE STATEMENT


2) turn off SMART PUNCTUATION on your apple device as it adds all the gobbeldegook into your posts , then edit post #1) above , removing the word statement near the top and edit out all the punctuation errors caused by the forum glitch with smart punctuation

also sort out the lack of paragraphs at the same time, to make it more readable

at least then it will be completely readable


make sure you have done the AOS online , on the MCOL website , to double the period to write a defence from 14 to 28 days , then add 28 days to the date of service on the claim form and ensure the defence is submitted before that date

as long as its done before the court deadline there is no rush to do it

when it has been approved for submission, you will print it , sign and date it , scan back to pc and save as a pdf

this will then be emailed as an attachment to the CCBCAQ email address

Mellynelly123

Thank you for replying back to me, beyond grateful as I really am on the verge of just paying them with my first stupid mistake. Acknowledged on 2nd June (received their end 4th) Am I correct in thinking this statement is just emailed to court and nothing is added on the defence section on MOCOL?

Claim Number:***
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v ***

Defence

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


The Claim Form issued on the *** by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by "The Legal Team".


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)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 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.
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 £236.00 for outstanding debt and damages.


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 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.


4/ 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.


5/ 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.


6/ 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.


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 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 *** are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.


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 ***.
(b)failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** requesting further information and details of the claim as no previous letters were received.

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

Redx

Mellynelly123 wrote: »

Thank you for replying back to me, beyond grateful as I really am on the verge of just paying them with my first stupid mistake.



Acknowledged on 2nd June (received their end 4th)



Am I correct in thinking this statement is just emailed to court and nothing is added on the defence section on MCOL?

yes you are correct, so well done for knowing that


read this thread posted today


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5858340/defence-to-cel


and await critique of your amended defence above

The_Deep

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.