County Court Claim - CEL

drew1234

Good morning


I have received a County Court Claim from Civil Enforcement Ltd.


I have followed the guidance on the forum and completed the acknowledgement of service online.


Am quite worried about what the process ahead as reading other threads building a defence looking daunting and difficult to understand.


Any advice with regards to my case would be greatly appreciated.


The particulars of the claim are follows...


"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 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: __________
Time in: _____ Time out: _____
PCN ref: __________
Car registration no: _____
Car park: __________


Total due - 236.00
(Ref: ce-service website or Tel:01158225020)
The claimant claims the sum of 266.93 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 30.93 interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984
Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to- _____
Same rate to judgement or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to judgement- 0.05
Total debt and interest due- 266.93


Signed Civil Enforcement Limited"


I had a POPLA assessment but the decision was unsuccessful.


The summary of my case was as follows...


"The appellant’s case their son was extremely ill and they were picking up a prescription from the reception when the parked at the doctors surgery. The appellant explains they remained in the car with their son whilst their mother went into the surgery to pick up the medication. Unfortunately the medication was not ready for 15 minutes. The appellant states that the sign did not mention they needed to enter their vehicle registration. The appellant explains they have not been informed about the new procedures. The appellant feels that that being issued is unfair as they were only using the doctor’s facilities."


The supporting rationale for the decision was as follows...


"The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), as the appellant had remained on site for longer than permitted without registering their vehicle registration. The appellant’s case their son was extremely ill and they were picking up a prescription from the reception when the parked at the doctors surgery. The appellant explains they remained in the car with their son whilst their mother went into the surgery to pick up the medication. Unfortunately the medication was not ready for 15 minutes.


The appellant states that the sign did not mention they needed to enter their vehicle registration. The appellant explains they have not been informed about the new procedures.
The appellant feels that that being issued is unfair as they were only using the doctor’s facilities.


The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 09:29 and exiting at 09:45. From this I am satisfied the appellant had remained at the site for a total time of 16 minutes. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage located around the site in question. I am satisfied that this signage, displayed throughout the car park, clearly states the terms and conditions of the site. The signage states “All visitors must register for a permit on a touch screen inside the surgery.” The British Parking Association Code of Practice under, section 18.3 states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” I acknowledge the photograph provided by the appellant of the sign at the car park. I can confirm that this is the entrance sign and the sign clearly states “Permit holders only” and “See car park signs for terms & conditions.”


After reviewing the signage, I am satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements set out by the BPA and that the signs were conspicuous and legible. I note that the appellant states that they were not updated of the new procedures by the surgery. However, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Should a motorist be unable to meet the requirements of the car park, it is their responsibility to find alternative parking arrangements, in order to avoid incurring a PCN. When parking on private land it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions of parking set out in the signage at the site. On the day in question the appellant’s vehicle registration details were not registered with the operator. As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly."


Kind regards


drew1234

System

As this is a £236 and not a £350 one, I'd take care. CEL were dropping claims for £350 as they wouldn't work but there is now a trend for them to go all the way to a hearing - and provide a legal rep to argue their case. £236 is within a court's tolerance.

They will argue the signs. You have to argue that having to put in a registration is not an expected habit when picking up a doctor's surgery. As such the actual signs must be of a higher quality when holding a driver responsible (Denning's Red Hand Rule).

The BPA rule like some of the templates here are "one size fits all" whereas you have to argue the specifics of your case.

Also go back and see if the Surgery will get it cancelled, or if the Surgery hired them. If they did ask for a copy of the contract so you can defend the matter.

Also can you get a pic of the wording on the signs. Assume you got one in the POPLA pack. Is there a CEL contract in there too?

The_Deep

If the surgery has a feedback page, (many do), write bad stuff on it, they hate that. Also, can you get your local paper interested?

Not entering a VRN is trifle, and the Law does not concern itself with trifles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

I think that they would struggle in court to convince a judge that this alleged breach of contract has damaged them to the tune of £100, and is therefore, imo, a penalty. There is no commercial interest, they have lost no money, and it is not a genuine estimate of loss, Beavis does not apply. It is a scam by well practiced scammers.

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 House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Furthermore, £266 is excessive, the most a judge is likely to award if the PPC is unlikely to exceed £150 as thay have not used a solicitor, complain to the BPA that they are double charging.

drew1234

Thanks for your replies.

The surgery have said they are unable to overturn the PCN, I have asked numerous times and to each of the three managers who have been in place since day one of this PCN.

The total amount is for £341.93 which includes the court fee and legal costs.



I am unable to post pictures on this post as I am a new user on here. I have tried to copy and paste them too but to no avail.


The sign at the entrance of the car park says "See car park signs for terms and conditions" and another sign displays "ALL VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT ON A TOUCH SCREEN INSIDE THE SURGERY". This one was not seen as I stayed in the vehicle and my mum was dropped off at the side entrance.

Shall I ask both CEL and the surgery for copies of contract?

Thanks again.

KeithP

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

Hilary_Mary

I have a case almost identical to this - the only difference being that I was parked in a hotel car park for 12 minutes. I have just received a claim form from the County Court Business Centre. Should I start a new thread (or continue my old one?) or will any advice be applicable to my case too?
Thanks

KeithP

Hilary_Mary wrote: »

Should I start a new thread (or continue my old one?

Please continue on your existing thread. Thanks.

drew1234

Hi, issue date 01/10/18

KeithP

drew1234 wrote: »

Hi, issue date 01/10/18

With a Claim Issue Date of 1st October, you have until 20th October to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Monday 5th November 2018 to file your Defence.

Loads of time 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 thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Coupon-mad

drew1234 wrote: »

Shall I ask both CEL and the surgery for copies of contract?

Nope because you won't get it, so it's pointless.

The total amount is for £341.93 which includes the court fee and legal costs.

Good, as IamEmanresu said, CEL won't get that and are more likely to discontinue in the end when you call their bluff with a decent defence and later, WS & evidence.

On here we either see them discontinue, or lose at a hearing.

Search ParkingEye Odeon iPad defence and copy/adapt that one.

The_Deep

£342 is totally OTT for a single claim. Even if the won, the most a judge is likely to award the is i.r.o. £200, less if they do not hire a solicitor. They may well have shot themselves in the foot here by being greedy