CEL CCC - Directions Questionnaire (Title changed for attention)

ImNoExpert

Are those photos you've taken, or the one's sent to you by CEL?

HayleyD83

I took them today I went down there

beamerguy

HayleyD83 wrote: »

I took them today I went down there

OK thanks comments will come

Now, I must warn you never to respond to a PM on this
site unless the poster has at least 1000 posts to their
name ...... you can see that under the username.

Why ? because we get certain people whose agenda
is not genuine

thanks

HayleyD83

I would appreciate some advice/critique on the first draft of my defence against a CCC from CEL.

Background - CCC received 17th October from CEL for £236 plus £50 Legal Representation and £25 Court fee.
Alleged infraction: Over staying in Sainsburies Local Car Park 324 Hook Road Chessington by 18 minutes

Please be gentle! I have compiled this using Bargepoles consise defence as well as looking at some other defences where CEL is the claimant. I have tried to make it bespoke to my situation and not to 'copy and paste' too much.

* There is also a possibility that the signage at this car park is in breach of BPA CoP - I have included a link to my original thread which shows images. However I have chosen to omit this from my defence until such a time as I am able to demonstrate that the signs are inadequate.

http://https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5912677/cel-ccc-directions-questionnaire-title-changed-for-attention

Thanks in advance for reading

I XXX Defendant in this matter was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged contravention. I deny that the Claimant is entitled to the sum or any part of the amount claimed, and deny liability for this claim in its entirety.

1. The Claim form issued on 17th October 2018 by Civil Enforcement Ltd has been incorrectly filed under The Practice Direction. Which states that The Statement of Truth, where the Claimant is a registered company or corporation must be signed by either a director of other officer of the company. Practice Direct 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 own name and not that of his firm or employer. The Claim form issued on 17th October by Civil Enforcement Ltd is signed Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimants legal representative)

2. Civil Enforcement Ltd are not the owner or occupier of the land therefore they do not have the authority to bring charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
a) The Claimant is an agent acting on behalf of the landowner, and has failed to explain their legal standing in order for form a contract
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) There is no clear indication as to what legal basis this claim has been formed due whether it be breach of contract, contractual liability of 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

3. The Claimant is 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 by means of litigation.

4. The Claimant has failed to provide the Defendant with any evidence to validate that they were in breach of any of the alleged terms and conditions. The CCTV images purporting to evidence the contravention make no reference whatsoever to the surrounding area, showing only the vehicle, the road and a brick wall. The images are not time stamped therefore are evidence of nothing more than the vehicle in question travelling in two different directions on a nondescript stretch of road at an undisclosed time.

5. The Particulars of Claim state that Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T+Cs of use. 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

6. The Claimant has given no explanation as to how they have arrived at the sum of calculated The additional sum of £136 for ‘debt and damages’ This appears to be a cost with no apparent qualification and an attempt at double recovery In accordance with The Protection of Freedom Act Paragraph 4 (5) The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper

7. No figure for additional charges has been ‘agreed’ nor could they have been included as part of the alleged ‘contract’ because no such costs have been quantified on the signs or on any of the subsequent correspondence from the Claimant

8. The defendant refutes that the Claimant is entitled to claim £50 legal representation costs CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. In 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 believes that the claim has no merit or reasonable prospects of success and invites the court to strike out the claim.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true

steve1500

You may want to add, others may have another take?

The signage clearly shows that the claimant has not complied with Article 13 of the General Data Protection Regulations.

Article 13 explicitly states what information must be provided to the Data Subject when the information is collected. This information was not supplied to the defendant at the time of collection

As the claimant did not comply with Article 13, they should not have requested or have been provided with the personal information of the defendant.

The claimant has continued to process the personal information of the defendant, which I submit is also in contravention of the First Principle of the Data Protection Act 2018

KeithP

As the OP states in the opening post that this relates to an incident 'over a year ago', it probably doesn't matter too much that the signs didn't comply with DPA2018.

HayleyD83

I have noticed from looking more closely at the signs, the signs in the car park state 'data protection information is displayed at the entrance to this car park' There is remotely data protection related at the front of the car park. Is this note worthy do you think?

Redx

it may be for a WS later , so as long as inadequate and poor signage are mentioned then it opens the door later on

so maybe add a short paragraph about inadequate and poor signage, by looking at any other defences and cribbing from a suitable example

but although I am not legally trained, I think this last defence is the best one produced so far, so unless somebody like BARGEPOLE or LOC123 or Iamemanresu comments on it further, or hones it, stick with it for now, even if you alter it slightly, just add an edit into it

HayleyD83

Thank you! I have a little while yet to submit so i’ll Wait to see what other responses are

HayleyD83

Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Conditions which must be met for the purposes of Paragraph 4 (right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper vehicle) Paragraph 7 (4) (a) (4)The notice must be given—
(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and
(b)while the vehicle is stationary,by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.

Neither of these conditions where met in my case. - Clutching at straws???