Please could someone help me with my defence for county court against CEL?

Wobuzhidao

Hi all,

i would really appreciate help writing a defence for the following claim.

In the particulars of Claim box it reads:
Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of terms + conditions (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 + exiting the site.
Debt + damages claimed the sum of 236.00
Violation date: 13/11/2017
Time in: 16:40 Time out: 19:37
PCN ref: Ref************
Car registration no.: ******* Car park:- *********

Total due - 236.00
The Claimant claims the sum of 247.22 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 11.22 interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Court Act 1984
Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to- 18/06/18
Same rate to judgement of (sooner) payment
Daily rate to judgement- 0.05
Total debt and interest due- 247.22

The claims form is not signed by hand, but instead printed 'Civil Enforcement Limited' and the below that it says (Claimant`s Legal Representative)

In a box next to the particulars of claim it says:

Amount claimed 247.22
court fee 25.00
Legal representative`s costs 50.00
Total amount 322.22

I received the claims form on the 19th June 2018. I have sent of a acknowledgment of services form.
Please see my defence below:

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 19th June 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.

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. 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) and

iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

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. 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 of the POFA 2012 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, 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.(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified). neither the signs, nor the NTK mentioned a possible £322.22 for outstanding debt and damages. The additional costs, which the defendant contests have not been incurred, are none of its concern.
The Claimant also failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012).
9)(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
The notice was not served within 14 days of the incident, the incident date was 13th November 2017 and the PCN issue date is 05th December 2017. If the notice to the keeper was sent the same date that the PCN was issued then the defendant would not have received it until ether the next day or even a couple of days after that depending on what postage was used by the claimant. Therefore, the notice to keeper was issued over a week late and therefore does not comply with the POFA 2012.
(7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.
10.(1)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe evidence which must accompany a notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) or paragraph 6(1)(b)(as the case may be).
(2)The regulations may in particular make provision as to—
(a)the means by which any prescribed evidence is to be generated or otherwise produced (which may include a requirement to use equipment of a kind approved for the purpose by a person specified in the regulations); or
(b)the circumstances in which any evidence is, or is not, required to accompany a notice to keeper.
The notice to keeper states “We have photographic evidence of this incident” however, not evidence sent to the keeper.
The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions and the liability for the actions of the driver cannot be transferred to the 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 £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 £322.22. 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.

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 very vague particulars of 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. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate.
6.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation
6.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association’s ("BPA") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory

7. 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 potential driver(s) of the car 7 months later. The burden rests with the Claimant to identify the driver, who is the only party potentially liable in cases where a parking firm is unable to rely upon the POFA.

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 June 2018.
(b) Failed to meet the regulations of the POFA 2012 schedule 4,9 and 10.

(c) 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.

Coupon-mad

Remove all this waffle:

a. There was no compliant !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217; under the Practice Direction.

b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of !!!8216;draft particulars!!!8217;. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little 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. Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217; 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 !!!8216;take stock!!!8217;, 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) and

iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

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

and this:

4.(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified). neither the signs, nor the NTK mentioned a possible £322.22 for outstanding debt and damages. The additional costs, which the defendant contests have not been incurred, are none of its concern.
The Claimant also failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012).
9)(4)The notice must be given by!!!8212;
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
The notice was not served within 14 days of the incident, the incident date was 13th November 2017 and the PCN issue date is 05th December 2017. If the notice to the keeper was sent the same date that the PCN was issued then the defendant would not have received it until ether the next day or even a couple of days after that depending on what postage was used by the claimant. Therefore, the notice to keeper was issued over a week late and therefore does not comply with the POFA 2012.
(7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.
10.(1)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe evidence which must accompany a notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) or paragraph 6(1)(b)(as the case may be).
(2)The regulations may in particular make provision as to!!!8212;
(a)the means by which any prescribed evidence is to be generated or otherwise produced (which may include a requirement to use equipment of a kind approved for the purpose by a person specified in the regulations); or
(b)the circumstances in which any evidence is, or is not, required to accompany a notice to keeper.

And replace all this at the end:

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 June 2018.
(b) Failed to meet the regulations of the POFA 2012 schedule 4,9 and 10.

(c) 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.

with this instead:

8) The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form, which disclosed no Particulars of Claim that can give rise to a cause of action, or any claim in law at all, against this registered keeper Defendant.

9) If Directions are given rather than the court acting of its own volition to strike the case out due to a lack of properly pleaded Particulars, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is widely know that, where a claim is robustly defended, this particular Claimant routinely discontinues at Witness Statement stage and never pays the court hearing fee.

10) It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Courts, and for a Defendant to spend hours on their own Witness Statement against a vexatious litigant who invariably discontinue and are clearly in pursuit of default judgments and abusing the court process as an aggressive form of debt collection with no intention of paying for or attending a hearing.

11) Given that in 2017 and 2018 it has been observed in the public domain - and hopefully by the Courts, who cannot have missed the fact - anyone who defends robustly against this Claimant receives a notice of discontinuance, the Court is asked to act at an early stage, using its case management powers to prevent this abuse.

12) The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to striking out the claim on the Court's own initiative, as having no merit, no particulars of claim, no reasonable prospects of success, and given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100. The amount claimed on the claim is £322.22 and the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

Wobuzhidao

Thank you, please see edit:

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 19th June 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!!!8217;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.
3. Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert, stated that !!!8220;However keeper information is obtained, there is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.!!!8221;
Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and !!!8216;relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper.
The notice to keeper states !!!8220;We have photographic evidence of this incident!!!8221; however, not evidence sent to the keeper. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions and the liability for the actions of the driver cannot be transferred to the 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 £50 legal representative!!!8217;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 £322.22. 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.

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 very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage !!!8216;contract!!!8217; none of this applies in this material case.

6. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate.
6.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation
6.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association!!!8217;s ("BPA") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory

7. 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 potential driver(s) of the car 7 months later. The burden rests with the Claimant to identify the driver, who is the only party potentially liable in cases where a parking firm is unable to rely upon the POFA.
8) The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form, which disclosed no Particulars of Claim that can give rise to a cause of action, or any claim in law at all, against this registered keeper Defendant.

9) If Directions are given rather than the court acting of its own volition to strike the case out due to a lack of properly pleaded Particulars, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is widely know that, where a claim is robustly defended, this particular Claimant routinely discontinues at Witness Statement stage and never pays the court hearing fee.

10) It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Courts, and for a Defendant to spend hours on their own Witness Statement against a vexatious litigant who invariably discontinue and are clearly in pursuit of default judgments and abusing the court process as an aggressive form of debt collection with no intention of paying for or attending a hearing.

11) Given that in 2017 and 2018 it has been observed in the public domain - and hopefully by the Courts, who cannot have missed the fact - anyone who defends robustly against this Claimant receives a notice of discontinuance, the Court is asked to act at an early stage, using its case management powers to prevent this abuse.

12) The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to striking out the claim on the Court's own initiative, as having no merit, no particulars of claim, no reasonable prospects of success, and given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100. The amount claimed on the claim is £322.22 and the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

Coupon-mad

The only other things I see are:

- Move #7 up to become #3 because it makes sense to talk about not knowing who was driving, before talking about Henry Greenslade's words about it. Then move the others down one number.

- And I see nothing about no landowner authority and the fact they do not own the car park, which you will have seen in other defences, so add that too or you are missing a trick.

Wobuzhidao

Thanks please see 2nd edit:

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 19th June 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!!!8217;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.

3. 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 potential driver(s) of the car 7 months later. The burden rests with the Claimant to identify the driver, who is the only party potentially liable in cases where a parking firm is unable to rely upon the POFA.

4. Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert, stated that !!!8220;However keeper information is obtained, there is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.!!!8221; Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and !!!8216;relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper.
The notice to keeper states !!!8220;We have photographic evidence of this incident!!!8221; however, not evidence sent to the keeper. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions and the liability for the actions of the driver cannot be transferred to the keeper.

5. 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!!!8217;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 £322.22. 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.

6. 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 complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage !!!8216;contract!!!8217; none of this applies in this material case.

7. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate.
6.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation
6.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association!!!8217;s ("BPA") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory
8. No standing !!!8211; 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form, which disclosed no Particulars of Claim that can give rise to a cause of action, or any claim in law at all, against this registered keeper Defendant.

12. If Directions are given rather than the court acting of its own volition to strike the case out due to a lack of properly pleaded Particulars, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is widely know that, where a claim is robustly defended, this particular Claimant routinely discontinues at Witness Statement stage and never pays the court hearing fee.

13. It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Courts, and for a Defendant to spend hours on their own Witness Statement against a vexatious litigant who invariably discontinue and are clearly in pursuit of default judgments and abusing the court process as an aggressive form of debt collection with no intention of paying for or attending a hearing.

14. Given that in 2017 and 2018 it has been observed in the public domain - and hopefully by the Courts, who cannot have missed the fact - anyone who defends robustly against this Claimant receives a notice of discontinuance, the Court is asked to act at an early stage, using its case management powers to prevent this abuse.

15. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to striking out the claim on the Court's own initiative, as having no merit, no particulars of claim, no reasonable prospects of success, and given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100. The amount claimed on the claim is £322.22 and the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

Coupon-mad

Change this:

The notice to keeper states 'We have photographic evidence of this incident' however, not evidence sent to the keeper. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions and the liability for the actions of the driver cannot be transferred to the keeper.

to this:

The Notice to Keeper use by this Claimant is routinely worded in a way that can only hold a driver liable and/or the NTK will have been served outside the mandatory 14 day period set within Schedule 4 of the POFA. Whilst this is a choice a parking firm can make (effectively to serve a PCN document like those that existed pre-POFA), it means they can only hold known drivers liable, never registered keepers.

Wobuzhidao

Thank you, please see 3rd edit:

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 19th June 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!!!8217;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.

3. 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 potential driver(s) of the car 7 months later. The burden rests with the Claimant to identify the driver, who is the only party potentially liable in cases where a parking firm is unable to rely upon the POFA.

4. Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert, stated that !!!8220;However keeper information is obtained, there is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.!!!8221; Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and !!!8216;relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. The Notice to Keeper used by this Claimant is routinely worded in a way that can only hold a driver liable and/or the NTK will have been served outside the mandatory 14 day period set within Schedule 4 of the POFA. Whilst this is a choice a parking firm can make (effectively to serve a PCN document like those that existed pre-POFA), it means they can only hold known drivers liable, never registered keepers.

5. 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!!!8217;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 £322.22. 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.

6. 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 complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage !!!8216;contract!!!8217; none of this applies in this material case.

7. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate.
6.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation
6.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association!!!8217;s ("BPA") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory
8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form, which disclosed no Particulars of Claim that can give rise to a cause of action, or any claim in law at all, against this registered keeper Defendant.

12. If Directions are given rather than the court acting of its own volition to strike the case out due to a lack of properly pleaded Particulars, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is widely know that, where a claim is robustly defended, this particular Claimant routinely discontinues at Witness Statement stage and never pays the court hearing fee.

13. It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Courts, and for a Defendant to spend hours on their own Witness Statement against a vexatious litigant who invariably discontinue and are clearly in pursuit of default judgments and abusing the court process as an aggressive form of debt collection with no intention of paying for or attending a hearing.

14. Given that in 2017 and 2018 it has been observed in the public domain - and hopefully by the Courts, who cannot have missed the fact - anyone who defends robustly against this Claimant receives a notice of discontinuance, the Court is asked to act at an early stage, using its case management powers to prevent this abuse.

15. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to striking out the claim on the Court's own initiative, as having no merit, no particulars of claim, no reasonable prospects of success, and given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100. The amount claimed on the claim is £322.22 and the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

Wobuzhidao

Please could someone respond? Is it okay to send off? I am worried about how generic this is as I have been told previously to put specifics to my case in the defence. Also I am worried about the ending of the defence, I have not seen that in any other defence and I am worried that it might offend the judge and CEL who will both be determined that I lose because of it?
I am sorry I don't mean to be ungrateful for Coupon-mad's help, i really am grateful! I am just concerned I have not seen any defence like it that won or got discontinued. Please help.

KeithP

When is your Defence due?
What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?
Have you done the Acknowledgement of Service?

Coupon-mad

Looks OK, I've already commented twice and it's only CEL who run from hearings!

Wobuzhidao

Hi KeithP

The defence is due on 22nd July,
The date for the claims form is 19th June
Yes i have done an acknowledgement of service