CEL county court claim letter - defence advice needed

Coupon-mad

That defence is too short (there is concise and there is ''too short'' IMHO!).

I can't even see anything that says much about the facts, or that the driver has never been identified and that this Claimant cannot hold you liable as they do not use the POFA. You might well need that in this case!

Search the forum for Civil Enforcement POFA defence and copy a few paras.

Esperanto

The Defendant admits that he was the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX at the relevant time and that the car was parked on the land in question at the time specified on the claim form.

The Defendant denies that he is liable for the entirety of the sum claimed for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claimant has not complied with pre-Court protocol. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. Consequently, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction (CPD) 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.
- There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
- The particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of CPD 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
- CPD 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his/her own name and not that of his/her firm or employer. The Claim form was therefore not correctly filed under the Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by “Civil Enforcement Limited” as the Claimant’s Legal Representative.
2. The Claimant has breached the terms listed in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
- The notice to keeper (NTK) from the Claimant did not cite POFA, so the Claimant has no basis whatsoever to write to a registered keeper, except for the single purpose allowed under the DVLA KADOE rules, namely to 'enquire who was driving'. The Claimant was barred from using not use the data for any other purpose whatsoever, and certainly not to pursue a registered keeper as if the alleged 'debt' was their liability in law.
- The Claimant has never provided the Defendant with the wording of the alleged contract. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter so this has prevented the Defendant from preparing a full defence. The Claimant has also never provided the Defendant with any photographic evidence (ANPR photos) of the contravention. The driver has never been identified.
- The terms on the Claimant's signage are 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. This is a breach of POFA Schedule 4 and the British Parking Association Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
- POFA Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £xxx. The claim includes an additional £xx, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The Defendant believes the Claimant has artificially inflated this claim. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of 'draft particulars'. The Claimant is claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (Civil Procedure Rule 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. 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.

3. According to the Land Registry the land in question is not owned by the Claimant. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment through litigation.

4. 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.

In summary, the Defendant denies that he, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. The claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

You can't say this, they are allowed to ask for interest if they win:

The Defendant also denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

I still can't see anything that says much about the facts, or that the driver has never been identified and that this Claimant cannot hold you liable as they do not use the POFA.

Why do people fixate on the date of the NTK...a non POFA NTK is still ''non POFA'' (in wording, as CEL's are) even if served in week one!

Esperanto

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can't say this, they are allowed to ask for interest if they win:


I still can't see anything that says much about the facts, or that the driver has never been identified and that this Claimant cannot hold you liable as they do not use the POFA.

Why do people fixate on the date of the NTK...a non POFA NTK is still ''non POFA'' (in wording, as CEL's are) even if served in week one!

Thanks. Will remove the bit about interest. I've now got the original PCN. It says 'This Notice is issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012'. Given that is included, does that mean that they do use POFA and they can find me liable as registered keeper?

Happy to send letter as message if that helps ?