CEL help with court defence needed

asunnyday

Hi I would appreciate any help with looking through my defence. I have ignored a parking ticket I received in January 2018 (I know now this was not the best thing to do). I parked in a hospital car park, where I had been called to see a patient on one of the wards in a work capacity). I did not see any parking notices at all therefore did not get a ticket and received the various letters. I now have received the court letter and acknowledged online after reading the sticky. The date on the Court letter was 1st October.



I have put together the defence below, I wonder if someone would be kind enough to check for me.



Many thanks





Defence is as follows:

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number:

---

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited v

---

I am

---

, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle

---

.

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

1. The Claim Form issued on 01/10/2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not(is this supposed to be the original date of fine or the date I got the claim form?)
correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited” (Claimant’s Legal Representative).

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

a) There was no compliant “Letter before County Court Claim” under the Practice Direction.

b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

d) 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.(can I say this if I have a letter with pictures of my car entering and leaving the car park?)
3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of 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.
4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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.

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and ‘relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK mentioned a possible £254.69 for outstanding debt and damages.
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. 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 representative’s (or even admin) costs” were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(i) 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.
(ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.(I need to double check that this is true)
(iii) It is believed the signage 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 an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(iv) 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.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
d) CEL CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

7. 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.

8. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

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.
(Can I say this for my case?)
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 October 2018.

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.(can I say this in my case?)

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 confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

I would be grateful for any comments or suggestions.


Thanks
Asunnyday

bargepole

Completely devoid of facts, and full of quasi-legal arguments that you probably don't understand.

I do wish people would stop using these 'spray and pray' templates.

asunnyday

Hi


I though I had followed what the sticky had suggested in copying defence from a similar case. No I don't understand it that is why I have come on here for help?!? Do you have anything helpful or kind to suggest?


Thanks
A sunnyday

Half_way

What happened when you contacted the Hospital?
I would assume you are aware of the NHS parking principles for Staff, patients and visitors and used this /reminded the NHS trust of this when you contacted them

KeithP

asunnyday wrote: »

The date on the Court letter was 1st October.

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.

System

I though I had followed what the sticky had suggested in copying defence from a similar case. No I don't understand it that is why I have come on here for help?!? Do you have anything helpful or kind to suggest?

The issue is one of facts on the day and not templates - though there is an almost quasi-religious devotion to them by some posters.

I did not see any parking notices at all therefore did not get a ticket and received the various letters.

So what do the particulars (middle box / left hand side) actually say. Do they, as one might infer, say you failed to pay in a Pay & Display or does it say something else. And is it true?

Or was this parking in a permit car park without the correct permit? And is this true?

Redx

asunnyday wrote: »

Hi

I though I had followed what the sticky had suggested in copying defence from a similar case.

I do not believe that it says this, especially as these defences are not "templates"

I cannot find where post #2 says they are "templates" at all and it does not tell anyone to copy a defence, but to study them

it actually says this

and show us your own tailored draft defence and we'll assist on a case by case basis.

I am not even sure there are any similar CEL cases at hospitals

they are bespoke EXAMPLES of what other members have used or are using as their own bespoke defence, which may or may not be factually correct, may not be accurate and may not be the best example in their own defence never mind in somebody elses defence

so I agree with Iamemanresu and Bargepole , the OP must not think of these as templates, but GUIDANCE in helping to formulate their own bespoke defence

my advice to this OP and to others is to read, yes READ other 2018 defences that knowledgable people like Bargepole have commented on, ESPECIALLY if Bargepole has subsequently honed a scattergun approach defence into a CONCISE defence , which he has done recently on several threads that he has posted on

also look at ones that have been edited and honed by coupon_mad , Johnnersh , Iamemanresu , LOC123 and others who are regulars here and have some legal training like Bargepole

start with the BARGEPOLE CONCISE DEFENCE that he posted recently and work from there for example

but anyone treating these defences being used in other threads as TEMPLATES is being foolish and foolishly advising others that they are templates , instead of stating that they are EXAMPLES of what may be used if writing or adapting for your own use which is what coupon_mad intended when she linked them

so let us STOP referring to them as TEMPLATES, call them EXAMPLES from which to write your own bespoke defence

so each one is therefore BESPOKE and an EXAMPLE, not a TEMPLATE, and may be of use only in the thread it is in or a starter for ten in your own defence

and as mentioned earlier, this OP should have complained to the NHS TRUST HR department and insisted on a cancellation months ago, so what was their reply ? (was it even done and if not , why not ? , seeing as it was the best option and always is the best option in any private parking case)

and what does the POC actually say, ? like Iamemanresu asked !!!

try answering those questions before trying to write a defence where the facts are not known

so POC details ? circumstances ? DATE OF ISSUE ? , what does the trust say about this going to court ?


here is what coupon_mad said in the NEWBIES THREAD

ALL CASES - COMPLAIN FIRST, ESPECIALLY OVER A RETAIL, HOTEL, OR HOSPITAL CAR PARK:

Always complain to the Retailer very quickly and assertively, WITH A RECEIPT IF POSSIBLE:

Substitute the words NHS HR MANAGEMENT FOR THE TRUST (for RETAILER)

what are the trust doing about the NHS guidelines posted years ago ?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

what have the UNION said about this matter ? do they offer free legal services for example ? (I know mine did and do)

asunnyday

Hi Thanks for your reply, the actual charge POC says "claim for monies related to a parking charge for parking in a private care park ", They have a photo of me leaving, I was there for less than an hour and honestly did not see a sing or machine that required payment. A news article in 2016 says the car park is free for visitors patients and staff as long as they enter their details on an iPad in reception, which I also never saw.

Redx

so they have pictures of YOU leaving ? not the VEHICLE ?


its not normal to take pictures of people, more like stalking


I suspect you need to choose your words much more carefully

asunnyday

I meant they had a photo of the car leaving not myself driving the car. Have read through several defence and not sure what exactly to include but here is a start below. As suggested I have only include what I know to be facts and no legal jargon.

Many thanks in advance for comments.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: [INSERT]

Between

Civil Enforcement Ltd

(Claimant)

- And -

[YOUR NAME]

(Defendant)

______________________________________________________________

DEFENCE STATEMENT

______________________________________________________________
I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration no. [INSERT]. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked in Cirencester Hospital Car Park on 11th January 2018.

2. The Car Park in question is one with which the Defendant was unfamiliar. There were no signs easily visible in the Car Park nor Pay & Display machines obvious indicating how payment might be made. The Hospital’s website states that parking is “free for all staff, patients and visitors if they enter their vehicle registration details on an IPad in the hospital reception". However the claimant saw no IPad or signage in reception, at the time of visiting the hospital.

3. On the date in question (11th January 2018) the driver of the vehicle had been requested by the staff to visit the hospital to give a medical opinion on the treatment of an inpatient. Normally an average of 1 hour would be allotted for such visits and the duration of the stay in the Car Park was 54 minutes. Nursing time within this role is very sparse commodity and, as is usual for a Macmillan Nurse, this was one of many patient visits to differing address for the Defendant that day.
4. Following an unsuccessful appeal to the Claimant, I researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimants trade body, the IPC. My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.
5. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £170, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding various ‘Solicitor’s Costs’ of £50.00 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.
6. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

………………………………………………………. ………………………
(Defendant) (Date)

Redx

its DEFENCE, not DEFENCE STATEMENT , please edit it

and what you have written above is more like a Witness Statement (WS), not a DEFENCE

a defence contains legal arguments etc, see the BARGEPOLE DEFENCES posted this year, especially the BARGEPOLE CONCISE defence


also have a read through this one too


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5908388/county-court-summons


read some of the replies and why they say what they say in them