CEL Court Claim Defence Help Please

Batman2797

Hello,

So I have received the N1 claim form for a parking charge notice from CEL- issue date 01/10/18. I have submitted the acknowledgement of service via MCOL today. I am now looking to write up my defence but would like some help if possible please?

I have read a number of examples on here but to be honest I am quite unsure exactly which parts to include for mine. I'll give you a brief run through the back story of my situation below:

The car park in question is a 1 hour free stay shop car park- with 1 hour additional available for free if you ask in store. CEL manage the car park using ANPR. It states that these terms apply 24 hours per day on the signage. The car was clocked arriving at 07:51 and leaving at 09:33 so an overstay of 40 mins according to them. Whilst the car was parked, I had gone for a haircut, but this was walk ins so unfortunately it took longer than hoped in waiting.

I appealed unsuccessfully to CEL, and then to POPLA. Following that I decided to let it progress to court action and I would fight it once that happened- hence where we are now.

My arguments are that that the signage is misleading as the terms actually do not apply 24 hours per day as stated. 1) the shop is only open 9am to 5:30pm - so how could I obtain the extra hour when the shop was shut. 2) The car park has an agreement with a Bingo place round the corner where they are allowed to park there from 6:30pm until the shop opens the following morning for free- which clearly goes against the signage- there is no mention of this anywhere except the bingo website. I have a recorded phone call as evidence of the named manager of Bingo place clearly stating that you will not get a ticket parking there overnight until the shop opens. Which means that on that basis my 1 free hour should not have really started until 9am when the shop opens, thus meaning there was no overstay in the first place. 3) I have pictures of the current signage, but the evidence CEL submitted for the POPLA appeal was pictures of signage and site plan which was about 15/20 years old- it was not even the current shop that occupies the site. 4) CEL sent me a letter before action really early on when the fee they were asking for was £140 with a rubbish draft of particulars, since then they passed it round ZZPS and QDR which has now led the fee being asked for as £337 in total (amount claimed £262.02, court fee £25, Legal reps costs £50). How can they justify ramping it up like that after they sent me a LBA??

Any help with this would be massively appreciated. I want to take this the whole way and defeat this robbing bullies, or at the very least make them work for the money.

many thanks,

KeithP

My arguments are that that the signage is misleading as the terms actually do not apply 24 hours per day as stated. 1) the shop is only open 9am to 5:30pm - so how could I obtain the extra hour when the shop was shut.

Doesn't that mean that the extra hour simply isn't available when the shops are shut?
In other words, my interpretation is that parking is limited to one hour when the shops are shut.


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.

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 FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.


Please can you post the exact contents of the Particulars of Claim box on your Claim Form.

Batman2797

Doesn't that mean that the extra hour simply isn't available when the shops are shut?
In other words, my interpretation is that parking is limited to one hour when the shops are shut.

Yep I agree. Upon reflection this probably why my appeal failed with Popla.

So the exact contents of the particulars of claim are:

Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the terms + conditions (T+Cs). Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T&Cs of us. 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: 07:51 Time out: 09:33
PCN ref: **********
Car Reg: ********
Car Park- Mattressman

Total due- £236
(Ref:]ce-service or Tel: 01158225020
The Claimant claims the sum of 262.02 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 26.02 interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984
Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to 28/09/18
Same rate to Judgement or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to judgement- 0.05
Total debt and interest due- 262.02

Batman2797

Any further help?? Would be massively appreciated!

KeithP

Post your proposed Defence here for critique.

There are several examples in that NEWBIES post I mentioned earlier, and the are literally hundreds of others for you to find on this board.

No-one here will be writing your Defence for you.

Batman2797

Ok guys... please see below my drafted defence. Could you all have a read and critique please?

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: *******

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement LTD (Claimant)

-and-

******** (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

1) The Claimant is a serial litigant whose business model is to file large numbers of spurious claims and pressure defendants into paying up by
sending letters increasing costs. In a preliminary hearing for a number of cases in Bristol, HHJ Denyer expressed his concern at the way CEL were
conducting their cases and described the letters as a disgrace.

2) It is submitted that neither the Claim form or particulars of claim meet the requirements of practice directions and civil procedures.

3) The Claim form clearly states that the location of the incident is 'Mattress Man', however no other previous correspondence from the Claimant has mentioned this as the location. Therefore it appears that the Claimant may be trying to Claim for something new or different of which I have had no prior correspondence in regard to.

4) The Claimant is put to strict proof their ability to issue and pursue charges at this location and that they have a valid contract in their name
with the Landowner to instigate any legal action. A full contemporaneous and unredacted contract with the landowner showing a clear chain of
authority is required to demonstrate the Claimant' s ability to pursue the charge. Additionally, The Claimant is put to strict proof the accuracy
of any ANPR and that their signs have the relevant advertising/planning consents.

5) The Defendant has evidence that the Claimant knowingly and brazenly breaches the terms and conditions stated on their own parking signs at the location. This proves that they are choosing when to apply these terms and when not to, thus making their claim unfair and frankly disgraceful.

6) The signage at the location was ambiguous and therefore it was difficult to adhere to the terms and conditions. Furthermore the Claimant has at no point provided any time stamped evidence of the signage at the location on the day when this alleged incident occurred.

7) The Claim amount far exceeds the total permitted for recovery for a parking charge amount under the Claimant's ATA Code of Practice, it is
submitted that the Claimant has artificially inflated the claim by failing to issue proceedings following their letter before action, instead
passing the matter to a debt collector first where there is no basis for additional charges.

8) The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representatives costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £337.02. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.

9) The Claimant is a serial abuser of the courts in this way, filing over 3,000 claims in 2014. However, it is widely reported that the Claimant
fails to turn up to defended cases, wasting the court’s and the defendant’s time

10) I therefore ask that that the claim be struck out as having no prospect of success, and bring to the courts attention a similar order made in the
case of Premier Park Limited v Lisa Grafton, A3QK0712, struck out on 19 March 2015. As the Claimant is not likely to attend court even if the claim
progresses, this will save costs all round.

11) In the event the claim progresses, then as an unrepresented litigant in person, I reserve the right to alter, vary and add to this defence or
reply to any further particulars of claim/documents the Claimant may provide.

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

With a signature and date below

nosferatu1001

4) Shorten it. Yo udont need to say what the contract must contain, as youve said it must be unredacted. Same for advertising concept - delete this. Unless you are running an ex turpi defence?

5) What possible relevance does this have? given they are the ones offering the contract, theyre not bound by its terms! ALso, what defence does it give you? Reasonable expectation? Something else?

6) DIfficult how? If youre claiming ambiguous then surely youre also saying CRA2015 requires teh most advantageous interpretation applies, and therefore did the driver comply with THAT interpretation?

7) Explain the chain where it went round the houses, and the jumps. Put it to proof that it has paid these so called charges

8) This is a huge mess. BE CLEARER on this. If they havent used a solicitor to fgile the claim, then they cannot claim the legal costs.

9) Irrelevant

11) Good way to annoy the court. You ahve to ask permission to amend a defence, the court can refuse this without an application being made and the fee paid.

What about POFA compliance? They never manage it
Anything about visibility of signage?

Batman2797

Many thanks for your reply Nosferatu1001, I shall post my amended defence based around your advice shortly.

What about POFA compliance? They never manage it
Anything about visibility of signage?

Annoyingly I had almost admitted being the driver in my initial appeal to the CEL and in my Popla appeal. Of course now I know this was stupid, but at that point I had not even sought advice online from forums such as this so I was very naive. Also the signage in fairness is visible and plentiful around the small car park.

Batman2797

Amended defence below, again please critique- all help massively appreciated.


________________


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: *********

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement LTD (Claimant)

-and-

**********(Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

1) The Claimant is a serial litigant whose business model is to file large numbers of spurious claims and pressure defendants into paying up by
sending letters increasing costs. In a preliminary hearing for a number of cases in Bristol, HHJ Denyer expressed his concern at the way CEL were
conducting their cases and described the letters as a disgrace.

2) It is submitted that neither the Claim form or particulars of claim meet the requirements of practice directions and civil procedures.

3) The Claim form clearly states that the location of the incident is 'Mattress Man', however no other previous correspondence from the Claimant has mentioned this as the location. Therefore it appears that the Claimant may be trying to Claim for something new or different of which I have had no prior correspondence in regard to.

4) The Claimant is put to strict proof their ability to issue and pursue charges at this location and that they have a full contemporaneous and unredacted contract with the landowner. Additionally, The Claimant is put to strict proof the accuracy of any ANPR.

5) The signage at the location states that there is 1 free hour of parking plus an extra hour that can be claimed by asking in store and that those terms apply 24 hours per day. The store however is only open 9am until 5:30pm each day except Sundays. The Defendant has photographic and voice recorded evidence that the Claimant knowingly and brazenly allows customers to breach the terms and conditions stated on their own parking signs at the location, in some cases allowing customers to park there for up to 15 hours without receiving a parking charge notice. This proves that they are choosing when to apply these terms and when not to, thus making their claim in this case unfair and frankly disgraceful. The Claimant has at no point provided any time stamped evidence of the signage at the location on the day when this alleged incident occurred.

6) i)The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representatives costs were incurred. The Claim form is clearly signed by 'Civil Enforcement Limited' and so proves that they have not instructed any solicitors to act on their behalf and therefore have not incurred any legal representative costs of which they are claiming.
ii)The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £337.02. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.
iii) A timeline of correspondence received from Civil Enforcement Ltd and the charges stated follows as below:
• 07/06/2017- Parking Charge Notice- £100
• 14/07/2017- Parking Charge Notice Reminder- £100
• 09/11/2017- Letter Before Action- £140 (£40 increase not explained).
• 18/04/2018- Passed to 'ZZPS' - £200 (£60 increase for administration costs of passing to ZZPS).
• 04/05/2018- ZZPS - £200
• 25/05/2018- Passed to 'QDR Solicitors' claiming to be acting on behalf of ZZPS- £236 (£36 increase for passing to QDR)
• 12/06/2018- QDR Solicitors- £236.
• 24/08/2018- Passed back to Civil Enforcement- £236
• 01/10/2018- N1 Claim Form- Total £337.02 (£262.02- because interest added to £236, plus £25 court fee, plus £50 legal representatives costs)

The above timeline illustrates how the Claimant has inflated the costs without just cause. The letter before action was served 11 months prior to them actually applying to the courts with the N1 Claim form. In between that time they passed it to two other companies to incur further charges despite there being no basis for them. It is fact that QDR Solicitors could never have taken court action against the defendant (despite threatening it) as they have no direct interest in the alleged charge, therefore their involvement was needless, as was ZZPS.

7) I therefore ask that that the claim be struck out as having no prospect of success, and bring to the courts attention a similar order made in the
case of Premier Park Limited v Lisa Grafton, A3QK0712, struck out on 19 March 2015. As the Claimant is not likely to attend court even if the claim
progresses, this will save costs all round.

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

With a signature and date below

Coupon-mad

DEFENCE STATEMENT

Nope - see bargepole's defence in the NEWBIES thread post #2. Copy it if you like, it's concise and does the job.

CEL

Nope. Means nothing away from this forum. Should be ''the Claimant''.

of which I have had no prior correspondence in regard to.

That's not very grammatical and a defence has no first person ''I'' sentences.

Why is there nothing about 'no keeper liability' given that we all know - and every CEL thread tells you - they don't use POFA wording?

I can't actually see what you are saying the defence even is?

The defence doesn't yet look as strong as other CEL defences we've been working on this week/month, so read some more over the weekend.

Batman2797

Why is there nothing about 'no keeper liability' given that we all know - and every CEL thread tells you - they don't use POFA wording?

Thanks Coupon-mad for your response, massively appreciated.

In relation to the the POFA. I feel a little bit stuck with that because I had basically admitted driving the car in my initial appeal to CEL and also in the Popla appeal. I was naive at the time and had not looked up advice on sites like this when I completed those appeals. Will this matter if I now use some POFA stuff in my defence? how likely is it that CEL would still hold my initial appeal to them and use that as evidence?

many thanks,