CEL CCC - Directions Questionnaire (Title changed for attention)

Castle

HayleyD83 wrote: »

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???

Yes... you'll need to look at paragraph 9 for PCN's issued through the post and the specific requirements; however, if the name of the driver is known then POFA doesn't apply.

HayleyD83

Castle wrote: »

Yes... you'll need to look at paragraph 9 for PCN's issued through the post and the specific requirements; however, if the name of the driver is known then POFA doesn't apply.

Thank you! This has been a big learning curve for me! Ok i think the POFA angle is a no go by the sounds of it. I should concentrate my defence on the fact that they have incorrectly filed the CCC and the fact that they are not the landowners nor have the demonstrated any authority to issue proceedings on behalf of the landowner. In addition to this they have failed to sufficiently evidence the alleged contravention using ANPR (no time stamp or proof that the vehicle was even in the car park.)I think that's my best way forward unless anyone else has any pearls of wisedom! I believe their signage to also be inadequate (reference to DPA information being displayed at the entrance to the car park which is false)

HayleyD83

CEL Defence Draft 2 - Any comments would be appreciated!!

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 Direction 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, they have no rights to bring this case, or even to allege any breach of contract CEL has failed to evidence a dated, signed contemporaneous copy of the actual agreement/contract with the landowner giving them the relevant authority to issues proceedings on behalf of the landowner as required by the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
(a) Furthermore the Claimant has provided no indication as to the legal basis of this claim, whether it be 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 of otherwise

3. 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

4. BPA Code of Practice Section 20 (20.5a) states: ‘when issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered. The images purporting to evidence the contravention as supplied on the Parking Charge Notice do not sufficiently demonstrate that the vehicle was even in the car park, 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. This is a clear breach of the Claimants obligations under the British Parking Associations Code of Practice

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

HayleyD83

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

OP - go check the newbies thread

Post 2
You can easily find this. Page 1 of the forum, about three from the top

You have to do the legwork on this. SHow us your draft defence ASAP.

2nd draft of my defence would you be so kind as to comment if possible? I am due to go on holiday soon for 2 weeks! Therefore I would like to submit my defence in good time but obviously I want to make sure its as good as I can make it!

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 Direction 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, they have no rights to bring this case, or even to allege any breach of contract CEL has failed to evidence a dated, signed contemporaneous copy of the actual agreement/contract with the landowner giving them the relevant authority to issues proceedings on behalf of the landowner as required by the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
(a) Furthermore the Claimant has provided no indication as to the legal basis of this claim, whether it be 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 of otherwise

3. 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

4. BPA Code of Practice Section 20 (20.5a) states: ‘when issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered. The images purporting to evidence the contravention as supplied on the Parking Charge Notice do not sufficiently demonstrate that the vehicle was even in the car park, 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. This is a clear breach of the Claimants obligations under the British Parking Associations Code of Practice

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

HayleyD83

I am currently preparing a defence against a county court claim form issued by CEL for unpaid parking charges.

Brief background: PCN issued in September 17, all correspondence ignored including letter before claim (dated Dec 17) Appeal made directly to CEL in January 18 which was rejected. Nothing received further until CCC from Northampton Business centre on October 18

I am citing in my defence that the Claim form from CEL has been incorrectly submitted (goes to show the level of competence of these people.) On looking at the letter before claim from them I noticed that it has not been signed (!) and refers 'the key terms of the signs summarised in the attached schedule of information' - No such schedule of information was attached. My Question is: Can i refer to the errors on the LBC as part of my defence or is it irrelevant now that that stage has passed. In my mind they are referring to a schedule of information stating key terms of the sign which has never been evidenced?

Thanks in advance for reading

Coupon-mad

On looking at the letter before claim from them I noticed that it has not been signed (!)

Means nothing.

and refers 'the key terms of the signs summarised in the attached schedule of information' - No such schedule of information was attached. My Question is: Can i refer to the errors on the LBC as part of my defence or is it irrelevant now that that stage has passed. In my mind they are referring to a schedule of information stating key terms of the sign which has never been evidenced?

Yes mention any pre-claim inadequacies or omissions, like you see in any CEL defence. I commented on two yesterday. Loads here to read, everyone points out pre-court omissions, you will see examples all over the forum.

Signage is a major point - you CANNOT read £100 (or any sum at all) on those signs so you cannot have agreed to a contract to pay anything.

HayleyD83

Thank you very much!! Another thing to add to the list then!

ImNoExpert

HayleyD83 wrote: »

Date on claim form 17th Oct
Name of parking company Civil Enforcement

Sorry if I missed you say so, but have you at least done the Acknowledgement of Service HayleyD83?? You only get extra time to file your defence if you first acknowledge the claim brought against you.

HayleyD83

ImNoExpert wrote: »

Sorry if I missed you say so, but have you at least done the Acknowledgement of Service HayleyD83?? You only get extra time to file your defence if you first acknowledge the claim brought against you.

Yes I've done this don't worry!

HayleyD83

3RD DRAFT FOR REVIEW

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. As it was not signed by a Director or legal representative. Practice Direction 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.

2. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to follow pre – action protocol. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County’ as required under Practice Direction paragraph 6 (a) The Claimant has failed to provide the defendant with concise details of the claim. And has failed to explain the particulars of the claim such as why the claim arose what the alleged contract was or indeed what the basis of the claim is. Claimant is 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. contract The Claimant has failed to evidence a dated, signed contemporaneous copy of the actual agreement/contract with the landowner giving them the relevant authority to issues proceedings on behalf of the landowner as required by the British Parking Association Code of Practice

3. The ‘terms and conditions on the Claimants signage is displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle And as such anyone who attempted to read the signs would be unable to easily do so. On this basis it is denied that the Claimant has provided signage which is capable of creating a legally binding contract

4. 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

5. BPA Code of Practice Section 20 (20.5a) states: ‘when issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.’ The images purporting to evidence the alleged contravention as supplied on the Parking Charge Notice do not sufficiently demonstrate that the vehicle was even in the car park, 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. This is a clear breach of the Claimants obligations under the British Parking Associations Code of Practice

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

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