CEL CCC - Directions Questionnaire (Title changed for attention)

Coupon-mad

There was no compliant ‘Letter before County’

Letter before Claim.

I didn't see you admit or deny their Particulars of Claim, at the start, replying to their assertions, so that might include admitting:

- that the car was there, or that you have seen no compelling evidence that it was
- that you are the rk
- that you were the driver (or if not admitted, that they haven't used the POFA)

This one has a bit more to it, objecting to the £350 inflated claim and distinguishing the case from Beavis, so maybe grab some paras from here too:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74959778#Comment_74959778

It's not just £136 you need to object to. If £100 has become a £350 claim all told, then that sum needs a clear objection (even if it includes a valid court fee).

HTH

HayleyD83

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Letter before Claim.

I didn't see you admit or deny their Particulars of Claim, at the start, replying to their assertions, so that might include admitting:

- that the car was there, or that you have seen no compelling evidence that it was
- that you are the rk
- that you were the driver (or if not admitted, that they haven't used the POFA)

This one has a bit more to it, objecting to the £350 inflated claim and distinguishing the case from Beavis, so maybe grab some paras from here too:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74959778#Comment_74959778

It's not just £136 you need to object to. If £100 has become a £350 claim all told, then that sum needs a clear objection (even if it includes a valid court fee).

HTH

Thank you! I need to work on the responding to the particulars of the claim. There is NO compelling evidence that the car was there. However a while ago i somewhat naively made an appeal directly to CEL (before I had any idea it would ever go this far) therefore I am a little stuck as to how to proceed as I fear I may have already dropped myself in it and I don't want to be 'dishonest' as I am sure any Judge will see right through this and not look favourably on it!

Coupon-mad

Send a SAR to CEL by email today asking for all data held including all letters and exchanges of information at appeal stage, and all photos and evidence and ask whether they are able to identify the driver.

Attach a copy of the claim form and your V5C to show who you are, to save any delay.

HayleyD83

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Send a SAR to CEL by email today asking for all data held including all letters and exchanges of information at appeal stage, and all photos and evidence and ask whether they are able to identify the driver.

Attach a copy of the claim form and your V5C to show who you are, to save any delay.

Will do thank you! CEL do not seem to have an email address readily available (unsurprisingly1) I called to ask them for this information with a view to making a SAR surprise surprise no response to my message!!!

Coupon-mad

There is an email for the DPO on their privacy page, which is ALWAYS where to look for any SAR.

Loadsofchildren123

If you were taking your grandfather shopping and he's elderly and has alzheimers, is there an Equality Act angle? 45 minutes is an awfully short time for those who are not able bodied/the elderly.


On a separate note (not a defence) you should create merry hell with Sainsburys for allying themselves with a landlord who has agreed that 45 minutes is adequate for those using the shop. It clearly isn't.
Ask to see the contract between the PPC and the landowner.

HayleyD83

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Send a SAR to CEL by email today asking for all data held including all letters and exchanges of information at appeal stage, and all photos and evidence and ask whether they are able to identify the driver.

Attach a copy of the claim form and your V5C to show who you are, to save any delay.

SAR Submitted! Lets see if/how long they take to respond! I(I've printed a copy of the email)

HayleyD83

4th Draft (!) defence - Posting for review! Really grateful for any comments. Basis of defence:

1. Defendant was registered keeper and driver at the time in question
2. Defendant was assisting an Elderly gent with Alzheimers with shopping
3. CEL do not own the land and have failed to evidence a contract with the landowner authorising them to bring charges against the defendant (I have verified this via the land registry)
4. T's & C's on signage inadequate therefore no basis to form a legally binding contract
5. Nothing to significantly evidence alleged 'breach of contract' no date/time stamped photographs showing the vehicle parked in an incorrect way (I have submitted a SAR to CEL)
4. Claim for incorrectly filed
5 Claimant has given now explanation as to how £100 has risen to £338 debt!

I've tried to remain true to the facts as I see them and not to copy and paste too much legal jargon. Would really appreciate comments as I am determined to get this right!


In the County Court Claim No: xxxx
Between Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
And
XXXXXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE



1. The defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXX on the material date. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety and denies that the claimant is entitled to the sum or any part of the amount claimed

2. The facts of the matter are that the defendant parked at 324 Hook Rd behind Sainsbury’s local on the date in question to assist an Elderly Gentleman (the defendants Grandfather) suffering from advance Alzheimer’s with his shopping.

3. The land in question is not owned by the Claimant nor has the claimant produced any evidence of the required authority in the form of a contract with the land owner. Without this the Claimant has no right to bring these charges against the defendant. Accordingly it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. 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

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 show the car in transit, are not time stamped and make no reference to validate that the car was indeed even on the land in question. Therefor the defendant refutes that the claimant has provided any evidence of alleged breach of terms and conditions.

6. 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

6. The Claimant has given no explanation as to how they have arrived at the sum of calculated £331.38 The additional sum of £136 for ‘debt and damages’ 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

(c) 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.

(d) 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

Coupon-mad

suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s with his shopping.

You need to explain therefore, why there was no contravention:

Equality Act angle? 45 minutes is an awfully short time for those who are not able bodied/the elderly.

HayleyD83

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to explain therefore, why there was no contravention:

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment - I will research Equality Act and edit accordingly.