POPLA Rejected against CEL

Waleed

Hi Thanks,

Yes, I have read all of that and noted you comments.

I have also edited my post above in regards to hiding my identity and whether I should remove the POPLA decision. What would you recommend?

Also since the Particular of claim is so vague - do you think I should use TutorLeo's response which is more like a standard response because there is little information on what they are claiming or create a more specific to my situation? With this information - I can start with that particular direction.

Thanks for you time reading - I appreciate it.

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Redx

Yes, use a recent CEL defence and adapt it to suit

Yes edit any information that identifies you, changing to the words keeper and driver

Contact the admins and change your forum name to something obscure, which is what most people here have chosen to do, usually we do it at sign up

Change the thread title to CEL court claim

Email a SAR to the DPO at CEL and obtain all the documents and pictures and data about you and your vehicle, attaching a copy of the N1 claim form as proof of ID under GDPR

Quentin

You need to go through your posts and edit them to remove your name!

If you want to change your thread title then use edit/advanced

Waleed

Thank you all for the replies. I have noted your comments.

Waleed

Redx wrote: »

Yes, use a recent CEL defence and adapt it to suit

Yes edit any information that identifies you, changing to the words keeper and driver

Contact the admins and change your forum name to something obscure, which is what most people here have chosen to do, usually we do it at sign up

Change the thread title to CEL court claim

Email a SAR to the DPO at CEL and obtain all the documents and pictures and data about you and your vehicle, attaching a copy of the N1 claim form as proof of ID under GDPR

Hi

In regards to the changing the details, I believe I have removed all the details that are specific to me such as, the area and name but what I'm concerned about is the descriptive text/scenario that can identify me unless I am worrying for no reason?

Also would you mind pointing out the admins to get my name changed. Since I am new here I do not know how to identify them.

Thanks,

KeithP

Waleed wrote: »

Also would you mind pointing out the admins to get my name changed. Since I am new here I do not know how to identify them.

To help with that, you might like to read this short extract from The MSE Forum Guide - Frequently Asked Questions & Rules:

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.

Quentin

#8 needs more editing

Waleed

First, before I put my defence here, I would like to thank everyone that has provided me with advice and has continued to support my case and the community as a whole. Thank you.

I would like to know since I’ve mentioned to them and POPLA that I visited the centre I do not know whether to add the #4, please advise. I am yet to receive SAR from CEL.

So the defence -

I am XXXX, the defendant in this matter and the renter of vehicle XXXX. I deny all the claims registered against me.

The Claim should be struck out at this initial stage because:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 17th July 2019 by Civil Enforcement Ltd 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).” Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case and truth on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and that person must state the office or position held. A legal representative who signs a statement of truth must sign 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. The Claimant is known to be a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical claims with Particulars of Claim so sparse as to be incoherent (as in this case). The Claimant is in fundamental breach of CPR 16.4 and paragraph 3.6 of Practice Direction 16 in failing to provide adequate particulars of the Claim. If the claim is for a breach of contract, no details have been provided about how the driver is alleged to have entered into a contract, or what its terms were (CPR Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7).

4. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver and thus a Cause of Action; and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

7. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. The initial signs when entering the car park displayed by the claimant are also misleading and false, stating “Absolutely No Parking” or “Permit Holders only” whilst it is a free car park. The signs that should form the contract and penalty are small and positioned when the driver turn to enter the car park, which is difficult to read and dangerous.

9. The signs that form the contract look exactly like the other signs that are misleading and the driver is easy to confuse with those misleading signs.

10. The claimant is pursuing charges for a free car park that allows anyone to use if they register within the Wellbeing Centre. At the time of entry the centre was closed, rendering it impossible to register.

11. The claimant has also omitted that British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) states that the defendant should be given 10 minutes to enter and 10 minutes to exit. The defendant left within the 20 minutes as per the particular of claim.

12. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

13. 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.

14. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR Rule 3.4 by exercising its inherent powers under CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1 as disclosing no Cause of Action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

15. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Court orders a stay of these proceedings until the Claimant has complied properly with its pre-action obligations (pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct) and providing for the Defendant to file an Amended Defence once it has done so.

16. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £175.95, for 'contractual costs pursuant to the Contract, PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest’, court fees and legal costs, which appears to be an attempt to recover 3 time that amount.

17. The Claimants costs on the claim are disproportionate and disingenuous. CPR 44.3 (2) states: Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will:
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

18. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

19. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

20. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

21. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

22. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

23. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
Both DJs Stated: “IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…"


24. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

25. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

26. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.


Statement of Truth:

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

Thank you everyone for your input

DoaM

4. keeper and driver ... or ... keeper or driver ?

11. There is no BPA Law ... you mean the BPA Code of Practice

And make sure to define any acronym before using it, e.g. ... British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP)