claim form from CEL he;p needed on how to play it

Coupon-mad

No.

Honestly, start again and just grab a concise example defence by bargepole, I've linked two of them by him, in the NEWBIES thread.

You have used a horribly wordy defence that says nothing at all.

koby83

the only defence i can see on the newbie thread that applies to me is the one that says about unclear signage and the defence i wrote is pretty similat to that so i cant see where i am going wrong

Coupon-mad

Please just go & read bargepole's defences which are BOTH about unclear signs.

koby83

how about this instead? is this sufficient?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked for a period of time on the date stated by Civil Inforcement Ltd. It is not possible to say the length of time the vehicle was parked for as the ANPR camera only took a picture of the defendants number plate on entering and leaving the site. There has been no consideration of time spent looking for a space, queuing to leave the site or any grace period taken into account.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle xxxx. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify 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, paras. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.
6. 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. They are also faded to the point that they are almost unreadable. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.
On contacting the landowner the defendant was informed that the landowner was trying to terminate their current parking control contract with Civil Enforcement Ltd due to numerous problems with complaints from customers regarding unfair and unjust fines. Thus said the defendant is a long standing customer of the site in question as they hold a gym membership for a business on this site. The defendant is not aware if Civil Enforcement Ltd still hold a parking control contract for this site or ever had one as no proof of the matter has been provided despite being challenged to provide one.


8. 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 £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad

So much better! Now we have something to work with.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle xxxx.

Do they say those words? If not, then change it to what the particulars really say.

What name is on the claim form at the signature part, an actual person?

koby83

thank god!!!

when you quoted above point 3- particulars of the claim stating the registered keep/driver...
is this on the claim form or on the original pcn? as the claim form just says for monies relating to a parking charge in a private car park manage by the claimant in breach of the t&cs

claim form is signed civil enforcement ltd (not actually signed just typed} then in brackets underneath claimants legal representaive

KeithP

The first reply on this thread asked:

What do the Particulars of Claim say EXACTLY (all words, minus the VRN)?

...and not supplied.


And still that info is being asked for.

koby83

word for word it says
claim for monies relating to a parking charge for parking in a private car park managed by the claimant in breach of the terms and conditions (t&cs).Drivers are allowedto park in accordance with t&cs of use. ANPR cameras and/ or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering and exiting the site. Debt and damages claimed the sum of 236.00
violation date 1/8/16
time in 11.22 time out 14.56
then the pcn ref no, vehicle reg and car park address
total due 236.00
(ref:ww.ce.service.co.uk or tel 01158225020)
the claimant claims the sum of 276.76 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 40.76 interest pursuant to s.69 of the county courts act 1984 rate 8.00%pa from dates above to 28/9/18 same rate to judgement or (sooner) payment
daily rate to judgement-0.05
total debt and interest due 276.76
the claimant believes that the facts stated in this claim form are true and i am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement
signed civil enforcement ltd
(claimants legal representative)

NO ACTUAL SIGNATURE ITS JUST TYPED

Coupon-mad

OK so now we know all of this, and your defence is better to work with, I've altered it to suggest this final version:


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim are sparse and embarrassing. There is no information regarding the alleged contract, or breach, or what the terms on signage actually said on the material date, or what the alleged breach was, or why/how the Claimant purports that the registered keeper is liable, given the facts that this Claimant has failed to evidence the identity of the driver and they do not use the keeper liability provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the 'POFA').

2.1. Further, the Claim Form issued was not correctly filed under the Practice Direction, as it was not signed by any legal person but signed/printed as a company name only: “Civil Enforcement Limited” (Claimant’s Legal Representative).

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper but which more than one person was authorised and insured to drive, was often parked legitimately at the location in 2016, due to gym memberships. It is impossible to be certain over two years later, which driver parked the car that day or whether this was a case of two visits to the gym, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of a single parking event by an identified driver. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle but the driver has not been identified and any 'violation' or 'breach of terms' is denied.

4. 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. It is not known whether the Claimant is suggesting that the vehicle, at all material times at this location being used by authorised gym members, was 'unauthorised' or allegedly overstayed an arbitrary time period.

4.1. However, it is denied that the vehicle was - by any reasonable interpretation - unauthorised, or that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The Defendant recalls that initially the gym was the only business at this location and parking was free. Then other units were added and gym members were allocated a permit allowing unlimited parking (no time limit) then at an unidentified date, the Claimant introduced an arbitrary (and unworkable, given the increased businesses on site) limit of three hours parking.

6. The Defendant has been informed that the landowner was/is trying to terminate the unsuitable licence under which this Claimant operates, due to numerous complaints from customers and gym patrons, regarding unfair fines which is the opposite of the intentions in the contemplation of the landowner, who merely wished to deter non-customer trespassers.

7. It is denied that the claimant's signage set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. Further, the terms changed so often over the years that it was confusing and gym members were routinely unfairly penalised, despite the signage/restriction changes not being prominent or drawn to the clear attention of patrons.

7.1. The Claimant will no doubt hope to convince the court that a 'relevant contract' existed and was breached. As this would be a consumer contract, it must be 'fair' and 'transparent' as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, given the facts of the case. The Defendant avers that this punitive charge had no reasonable legitimate interest, with no fair deterrent value against gym members and fails in all respects to disengage the penalty rule.

8. The Claimant is likely to rely upon the completely different Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, the Defendant avers that decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the facts. To quote from the decision in Beavis:

Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

8.1. By contrast, this penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.

9. The terms on the Claimant's signage were 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. They are also faded to the point that they are almost unreadable and the restrictions changed more than once, so that long-term gym users were set up to fail. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

10. 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. Issuing claims now for parking events dating back to 2016 at this site, is untimely, vexatious and a matter of revenge against the landowner for giving notice that the contract is to be terminated due to the volume of complaints. It is in the public domain that this Claimant is a serial offender in this regard, having stored DVLA data for years then issued proceedings against thousands of Co-op employees and customers when that contract ended.

11. The POFA states that the maximum sum that may be potentially recovered from the keeper (subject to full compliance by the parking operator, which is not the case) is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. This claim attempts more than triple recovery by adding purported but unsupported damages, admin, debt collector or other costs, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred at all. The Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount to some £350 is a gross abuse of process.

11.1. Further, the Defendant notes with alarm that the Claimant is pursuing over £40 in interest. Whilst it is accepted that in general terms, the court process can allow for interest to be charged on established debts, this Claimant has provided no evidence of any such liability, has no cause of action against a registered keeper and has inexplicably and unreasonably delayed this claim by over two years. The Defendant questions why the Claimant believes that their own excessive DVLA data storage, unreasonableness and negligence in 'sitting on' stored data to use much later as leverage against a landowner wanting to end the contract, should earn 8% interest, to the imbalance of an individual consumer Defendant's rights and interests.

12. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.



signed..............................

date...............

koby83

WOW
That sounds so much better. Thank you so much for your help x x