County court business centre

machang

Hi Everybody,

Thank you for reading my post and advising. I have read the newbies post and would like some help contesting my fine if possible.

Late last year I spent some time volunteering for a charity once a week for 4 hours. Unfortunately the only place I was able to park at the time was the garage across the road.

I received a letter recently from the county court business centre on behalf of Gladstone solicitors, who were representing PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMNT (uk) ltd.

They are trying to get me to pay around £850 in respect of parking in said garage last year.

I have registered with the county court centre to say I will be defending the claim.

I’m not sure if I should contact the fuel garage to ask them to canacel the claim?

I did a bit of research last night and came across this defence on this forum. Would I be able to use this or do I need to tailor it more towards my situation?

Thanks in adavance for any help.

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number ****
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v ******
Defence Statement

I am ******* the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle *****. I currently reside at ***.

The Claim Form issued on the **** by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “The Legal Team”.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:

1/ 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. None of this applies in this material case.

2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
(c) 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.

3/ I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
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.”

4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

6/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement 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.

7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:


8/ 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.

9/ 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.

10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge.

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 1st December 2016
(b) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** requesting further information and details of the claim

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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Signed
Date

onlyfoolsandparking

Absolutely you should defend this 'INVOICE' (not a fine) from a well known scammer!!!


First port of call is politely but firmly ask the garage to cancel OR get the Landowners details and hassle them, Landowner cancellations are THE BEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE way of getting rid of scammers.


How many PCN,s have you got?? £850 is a crazy amount


With the scammer being represented by Gallstones, that should work in your favour, the courts are well aware of these incompetent morons.


Keep reading around the forum in particular court defences, other more experienced posters will be along to help guide you through this unfortunate process.


With the great help available here you CAN!! beat these scammers, takes a bit of time and effort but well worth it with the totally outrageous amount they are trying to STEAL!!! from you.

nosferatu1001

You annot use the CEL defence. it is far tootailored to it.
Start with POST TWO of the newbies thread
Go online to acknowledge service. Tell us the DATE OF ISSUE of the claim form - your deadline, once the Ack. is done, is 33 days from this issue date

How many tickets?
Has the driver been identified to the parking company? YES or NO answer. DO NOT elaborate this point.
If NO, the nyou MUST edit the post above to HIDE The drivers identity. THE DRIVER parked at....as THE DRIVER was ....I AS KEEPER have been issued a claim through....

System

Unfortunately the only place I was able to park at the time was the garage across the road.

Why was it unfortunate?

After you got the first ticket, how many times did you park after that?

When did you decide to stop parking in that spot?

machang

I have been online today on the government money claim website to acknowledge receipt of the claim. I’m assuming that’s what you meant by acknowledging. And yes the driver has been identified as the driver.

It was issued on 03 October 2018 and I have 4 tickets.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd October, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you 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.

machang

Thanks for your reply. So I went to the shell garage today and it’s seems they own the land. After hassling the manager in there for a good 20 minutes I managed to get an email for Shellholloway@gmail.com. Do you have any idea what I should write?

Also is it a good idea do you think to put something on social media highlighting Shell and also the parking people?

KeithP

How are you getting on with your Defence?

You now have less that two weeks to file it.

machang

Shockingly bad. I’ve been moving house and tied up with work, family problems.

I finally got to the Shell garage in central London today got an email address for Shell. That owns the land. I’m just researching threads as to how to complain?

Redx

difficult to complain when there was no legitimate reason for being parked on their property

plus if you write bad stuff about them on social media or linkedin, if it is defamatory or libellous or causes them to lose business, they could issue a lawsuit for "malicious falsehood" and be claiming a lot more than this parking saga

if I were the landowner , I certainly would not be happy nor wish to assist you seeing as you didnt ask for my permission to park on my land 4 times and go off somewhere else (but I may have done seeing as its for charity, if you had asked me first)

these are not "fines", they are charges (invoices) by the parking company contracted by the landowner to keep rogue parkers from parking on their land, so act as a deterrent, so 4 invoices plus legal fees etc

I cannot think of a single word you could say about this saga that helps you in any complaint, plus I doubt it would stop this court case from progressing

if I were you, I would concentrate on my defence , seeing as the defence deadline is looming

IMHO the only way you could win this is on a legal technicality, aka what Mr Nick (Mr Loophole) Freeman , would do. so any defence would centre on legal techicality issues

all this complaining to the landowner (Shell) is a sideshow and any malicious falsehoods written online (published) could bite you on the rear and cost you even more money in the long run

you need to be smart about this, but seem to be being foolhardy, just as the driver was in parking on private land without the landowners permission on 4 separate occasions

machang

Thanks Red X. I did ask the manger at the time and he said it was fine, I used to pop in and see him to get a coffee and supplies before my 4 hour shift started. He’s no longer working there though. Parking in the area is limited to 2 hours at a time.

I take onboard what you’re saying and will take the advise given and start Researching MR Nick.

Thanks for the input.