CEL CCC - Directions Questionnaire (Title changed for attention)

HayleyD83

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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

How about this



In the County Court Business Centre Claim No:
Between Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
And xxxxxxx (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 on the 17th September 2017 the defendant parked at 324 Hook Rd, Chessington Surrey, KT9 1NU behind Sainsbury’s local to assist an Elderly Gentleman (the defendants Grandfather) who suffers from vascular dementia, with his shopping.

3. Under the Equality Act 2010, specifically Chapter 20.3, service providers are required to make reasonable adjustments for persons with disabilities. This includes providing extra time for a disabled person to use the service. Failure to do so not only constitutes discrimination, in accordance with The EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers, (specifically paragraphs 14.58, 5.4 and 5.34) but also renders any contract unenforceable under the prevailing legislation, namely paragraph 142 of the Equality Act. Because this car park is open to the public, the landowner, or managing agent, on-site outlets and the private parking company are all 'service-providers' who have a legal duty to adhere to the 'Equality Act Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' which became law on 6th April 2011.

(a) The Defendant would argue that 45 minutes does not sufficiently account for making reasonable adjustments which would allow an 88 year man with advanced vascular dementia, to use the services provided (in this case shopping at Sainsbury’s.)

4. The defendant has verified through the land registry that 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.

5. The Defendant has photographic proof that 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.

6. 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, not parked, are not time or date stamped, and make no reference to the surroundings which validate that the car was indeed even on the land in question. Therefore the defendant refutes that the claimant has provided any evidence of an alleged breach of terms and conditions.

(a) The Defendant has submitted a Subject Access Request on the 30th October 2018 for all data held by the Claimant concerning the defendant to include any other photographs held in addition to those featured on the original PCN. At the time of submission of the claim form the Defendant has failed to produce the required evidence as stated above.

7. The Claim form issued on 17th October 2018 by the Claimant 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.

8. The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. The Claimant is required by Practice Direction Paragraph 6 (a) to provide the defendant with concise details of the claim. Including the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated; The Particulars of the Claim Form state: that the claim is for “monies relating to a parking charge in breach of Terms + Conditions”. Therefore the Claimant has failed to detail the exact nature of any alleged contract, or evidence any contravention of said contract.

9 The Claimant has given no explanation as to how they have arrived at the sum calculated of £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.

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true
Signed

Coupon-mad

That's better, and add:

3. Under the Equality Act 2010 ('EA') specifically Chapter 20.3, service providers are required to make reasonable adjustments for persons with disabilities. This includes providing extra time for a disabled person to use the service. Failure to do so not only constitutes discrimination, in accordance with The EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers, (specifically paragraphs 14.58, 5.4 and 5.34) but also renders any contract unenforceable under the prevailing legislation, namely paragraph 142 of the Equality Act. Because this car park is open to the public, the landowner, or managing agent, on-site outlets and the private parking company are all 'service-providers' who have a legal duty to adhere to the 'Equality Act Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' which became law on 6th April 2011.

(a) The Defendant would argue that 45 minutes does not sufficiently account for making reasonable adjustments which would allow an 88 year man with advanced vascular dementia, to use the services provided (in this case shopping at Sainsbury’s.)

(b) Even if the Claimant responds to this fact, they cannot lawfully be excused of their statutory duty as a service provider, by trying to say that they did not know about the passenger's medical condition. This is not an allowable justification under the EA because this is not direct discrimination (where a condition is known). This is not what is being pleaded.

(c) In fact, this is INDIRECT discrimination under the EA, which is where an arbitrary rule or policy (such as a fixed time limit) causes detriment and/or loss to person(s) with 'protected characteristics' among the population 'at large'. Where a time limit is fixed, the service provider must have firstly considered and paid regard to the expected risk and distinct possibility that, say, 10% (or more) of visitors to a retail store will likely have protected characteristics that would mean they will need more time. This is in the contemplation of the landowner/retailer because disabled parking bays are provided, but this is not enough to meet the provisions needed.

Under the EA, fixed policies must be regularly considered against the needs of disabled people who will be adversely affected by them and proactive action must be taken to avoid 'indirect' discrimination. A 'reasonable adjustment' at such a car park would be to have clear extra signs at the disabled bays and at the tills and CS desk, asking simply ''disabled motorist? Do you need more parking time than 45 minutes? Please see our staff to exempt your vehicle from enforcement today.'' The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the steps they and the landowner/retailer took before any enforcement commenced and who decided 45 minutes was sufficient, and what was then discussed in terms of a disability risk assessment, dealing specifically with the effects of the policy on disabled people and how to extend that time where needed by (unknown, but fully expected to visit every day) disabled shoppers at large. The Defendant has the belief that no such discussions occurred.

HayleyD83

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's better, and add:

@Coupon-mad amazing thank you so much! In your opinion if I add this would you think I am ready to submit?

Coupon-mad

Yes, looks like it's time to email the signed/dated version to the CCBC with DEFENCE - CLAIM XXXXXX in the subject line.

HayleyD83

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, looks like it's time to email the signed/dated version to the CCBC with DEFENCE - CLAIM XXXXXX in the subject line.

All done and already researching the next stage - Just wanted to say thank you so much to Coupon-Mad Red X Beamer Guy and everyone else who has taken the time to help me. I feel I've really had my eyes opened and no matter what the outcome at least I've tried! Thanks guys

HayleyD83

Hi All,

So I sent my defence on the 1st November. I received an acknowledgement from the court stating the CEL have 30 days to respond... so far I've heard nothing, keep checking MCOL but it just states acknowledgment of service received.

Tomorrow I am going to Cambodia and Vietnam for 2 weeks! Not back until the 30th November which would be the end of the 30 day period which CEL have to respond. Knowing my luck they will send something while I am away... I am wondering if there is any point in notifying the court? Or will I just have to hope they don't send anything whilst I'm away?

Quentin

They mean they have 30 days to respond to the Court, not to you.


Enjoy your trip.


Nothing will be spoilt by anything arriving in the post during your 2 weeks away

HayleyD83

Quentin wrote: »

They mean they have 30 days to respond to the Court, not to you.


Enjoy your trip.


Nothing will be spoilt by anything arriving in the post during your 2 weeks away

Thank you! in that case I will go away and try to forget about it!

HayleyD83

SOOOO I submitted my defence on the 1st of Dec and had an acknowledgement from the court to say that CEL have 30 days with which to respond. So far I have heard nothing to say that they have responded. Can anyone tell me what happens if they don't respond within 30 days to the court? I won't, for one second believe that I would be lucky enough to think that this would be the end of it!

Also I finally received a response regarding my SAR from CEL yesterday. At least two of the letters I never even received!!

They had two photos with time and date stamps which I have never seen before, but nothing to verfiy the location of the vehicle....

beamerguy

HayleyD83 wrote: »

SOOOO I submitted my defence on the 1st of Dec and had an acknowledgement from the court to say that CEL have 30 days with which to respond. So far I have heard nothing to say that they have responded. Can anyone tell me what happens if they don't respond within 30 days to the court? I won't, for one second believe that I would be lucky enough to think that this would be the end of it!

Also I finally received a response regarding my SAR from CEL yesterday. At least two of the letters I never even received!!

They had two photos with time and date stamps which I have never seen before, but nothing to verfiy the location of the vehicle....

The court could strike the claim out. The courts know all about the antics of CEL

Assume you have read that CEL go so far and then discontinue at the last minute because they issued a fake claim

If the SAR produced info that the Letter of claim failed to include, then this should be brought to the attention of the court as you have not been given a fair opportunity to respond

Keep your eye on this as CEL has been known to say they will NOT attend court and they do, giving a default because you did not turn up.

CEL will be one of the first companies to be sanctioned once the new bill comes to play.