Civil Enforcement Limited County Court Claim

KeithP

DaKerr wrote: »

Issue date: 1/10/2018.

With a Claim Issue Date of 1st October, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until until 4pm on Monday 5th November 2018 to file your Defence.

Still nearly three weeks to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

bargepole

DaKerr wrote: »

Hi, this is what I have. Please let me know what you think and any suggestions.

That's almost 3,000 words. It's supposed to be a Defence, not an essay. Try looking up the word 'concise' in the dictionary, and see if you can rewrite it in under 500 words.

It isn't necessary to put your address in the Defence, nor should you repeat the Claimant's particulars.

Cut out all the repetition and waffle, and don't cite case law at this stage, save it for later in the process. Nor do you need to quote great chunks of the BPA Code of Practice.

Redx

Redx wrote: »

the BARGEPOLE concise defence is a good starting point, but there are numerous CEL defences on here, possibly hundreds to look at

from what BARGEPOLE says in his post earlier, its clear that you IGNORED my previous comment about using his concise defence and adapt it, because as he says , 3000 words is NOT concise and a judge will have fallen asleep long before the end and Coupon_mad also told you about it too

System

The OP was actually told in #3 not to use a template but ho hum...

If you think about it, the reason most people get a ticket / claim is a failure to read something e.g. a sign, a letter, a claim. So it is no surprise that some here need a bit more telling - or just abandon them as a lost cause.

You can take a horse to water etc..

DaKerr

How about this? 578 words. Checked point in draft poc, this covers the main points I would argue against (I only ever received an unsigned draft poc and claim form with poc).

Defence

Claim Number:

Issue date: 01/10/2018

Civil Enforcement LTD (Claimant)

vs

[NAME] (Defendant)
___________________________________________________________________________

I deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim.

1. The defendant did not exceed a reasonable grace period under 13.2 and 13.4 of the BPA Codes of Practice because:

a) The defendant was not parked between 17:21 and 17:43, recorded at the entrance and exit of the car park, this time was shorter.
b) After a reasonable grace period to decide whether to stay or go, the defendant left the space within a reasonable grace period after using the space to take someone to legitimately use the hotel facilities.

2. The Claim Form issued by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under Practice Direction 22, as it was not signed by a person. It states that it has been issued by “Civil Enforcement Limited.” Additionally, the draft particulars of claim is not signed and does not have the name and position of a person. The defendant has not received a particulars of claim that is not a draft other in the claim form.

3. The claim includes a sum of £50, described as “Legal representative’s costs.” The defendant puts the claimant strictly to proof that work was done by the claimant’s legal staff to the value of £50.

4. The Claimant has not stated how the total due before interest is £236.00. The original penalty was for £100. The defendant asks the claimant to show that work was done by the them to justify this increase.

5. Signs were not clear and visible.

a). The terms and conditions were not legible without having to be very close to them, therefore the signage was not clear and visible with regards to “advising drivers of the terms and conditions,”, as stated in point 3 of the draft Particulars of Claim.
b). As the terms and conditions were not legible until standing very close to the signs, the defendant could not accept them when parking his car, as in point 5 of the draft particulars of claim.
c). The signs state that “Hotel guests and visitors must register for a permit,” it says nothing about drivers taking guests to the hotel, which the defendant was, making the signs unclear.

6). There was no breach of contract.

a) The defendant argues that he spent a reasonable amount of time in the car park after having parked the car and having to spend time with a customer who he was taking to legitimately use the hotel facilities, who was a homeless care leaver, needing support and advice.
b) The defendant was not in a contract with the claimant, as the signage states that “Hotel guests and visitors must register for a permit.” The defendant was neither a guest nor a visitor to the hotel.

7). Even if there was a breach of contract, it was frustrated by events outside the control of the defendant, namely that the defendant had to spend time supporting and advising a homeless care leaver.

8). Civil Enforcement Limited have not established any social justification in this case. The defendant was using the car park for it’s legitimate use and spent a reasonable amount of time doing this.

9). The claim form states that the land is ‘managed by the Claimant.”. They are acting as agents and have no legal right to bring such a claim in their name, which should be in the name of the landowner.

DaKerr

Can someone please provide me with a link or tell me exactly where to find bargepole concise defence? Having to do this on my phone as admin have banned my IP address for some reason. I’ve looked at concise defences for unclear signage and am adjusting my defence accordingly, but cannot find a general concise defence to work from. My intention is to use something like that and adjust it to fit my circumstances.

Redx

try these from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread , post #2

A defence by bargepole, showing that a defence about unclear signs should be written concisely:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74674865&postcount=24

and even more concisely here, about poorly marked lines and unclear signs about where to park:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74833078#Comment_74833078

DaKerr

Hi redx, yes those are the ones I was looking at and have adjusted to include in an updated defence I’m currently working on. I wanted to see if if there was a general concise defence with all points people usually use and then I could Alter them to fit my defence. I like to research the points in people’s defences to make sure I understand them and they are relevant to my circumstances , rather than just copy and pasting them.

DaKerr

Are CEL and Creative (contracts) Car Park Ltd. the same company? I’ve tried contacting the hotel to see if they could get the ticket rescinded, they contacted Creative Car Parks, who gave the following response:

“This driver took us to the independent tribunal POPLA, and our PCN was upheld and they were directed to pay.
This was a correctly issued ticket.
This PCN is in our Court process and of course the driver will be able to give a defence in front of the judge at Court.”

As I see it, it actually says nothing here about the hotel not being able to rescind the ticket. Also, the claim against me and all correspondence is from CEL. If the same company, are they able to
Do this? Signage in the car park is for CEL, but the contract is with CCCL.

The hotel also looked at their contract, which said the following:

““Company” means Creative (Contracts) Car Park Ltd., company registration number 05818388, of 33/35 Daws Lane, London, NW7 4SD. The Company shall have the absolute right to determine whether any other enforcement notice is properly due and owing and the client shall raise no objection to the decision of the Company which shall be final.”

It doesn’t seem to say CEL have a contract here. If CEL and CCCP are same company, does it have to state this, as it appears CCCP have contract, but CEL are on signage and are the claimant.

Either way it seems like an odd contract to have where a company that is paying for the services of another cannot have any say on how they operate on land that is their interest (I.e. hotel car park). Surely they wouldn’t want to relinquish that control.

Kind regards

Castle

I'd suspect that the hotel has a contract with Creative Contracts (Car Park) Ltd who in turn subcontract out the enforcement to CEL; so two different companies, (and two separate contracts), but the Hotel remains the principal throughout.