newbie CEL county court letter

Coupon-mad

but as far as I can see the only defence I have, is that the establishment was closed, so there was no possibility to register, and also the signage couldn't have been very clear, as I didn't see it.

Perfectly decent defence points that point to an argument that there was no agreed contract.

And this account (below) shows that in fact the car was never left parked, as this was a taxi pick up which MUST have been in the contemplation of the landowners at the time and to charge £100and sue over that normal activity, is not an understandable ingredient' of any parking regime backed by any legitimate interest:

On the day in question (27July 2017 08:25am) the driver (an uber private hire driver) had been requested by uber, to pick up a customer from Miller & Carter, Wilmslow. (Uber can provide validity of this booking).
The car park operates a reception registered, free parking, with anpr equipped cameras. The establishment was locked and secure, with no access to register the car
The customer (an employee of Miller & Carter) sent a text message indicating she would be out in a few minutes.
The customer, came from the side of the building and entered the vehicle. The vehicle then left the car park at 08:43am.

It's not confusing. Use as a base, bargepole's template, adapted with YOUR facts, and you're there!

Do you also have Google location, or telematics, or a dash cam with data saved from that day? That can all be used later at Witness Statement/evidence stage.

dieseldo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Perfectly decent defence points that point to an argument that there was no agreed contract.

And this account (below) shows that in fact the car was never left parked, as this was a taxi pick up which MUST have been in the contemplation of the landowners at the time and to charge £100and sue over that normal activity, is not an understandable ingredient' of any parking regime backed by any legitimate interest:



It's not confusing. Use as a base, bargepole's template, adapted with YOUR facts, and you're there!

Do you also have Google location, or telematics, or a dash cam with data saved from that day? That can all be used later at Witness Statement/evidence stage.

thanks again, i'm going to take your advice and try my best, i don't have any google location etc. the only proof i can provide, is accessing my uber driver app and showing the job and time, or screenshotting the the phone screen, which shows all the details of the job. TIA

Coupon-mad

Sounds like perfect evidence for the later stages, to win the case.

But for defence stage, just use as a base, bargepole's template, adapted with YOUR facts, and you're there!

dieseldo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sounds like perfect evidence for the later stages, to win the case.

But for defence stage, just use as a base, bargepole's template, adapted with YOUR facts, and you're there!

fingers crossed, i'm getting close with this defence as the deadliune is getting close. any advice on wether this defence would have any chance would be gratefully appreciated.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. And this account (below) shows that in fact the car was never left parked, as this was a taxi pick up which MUST have been in the contemplation of the landowners at the time and to charge £100and sue over that normal activity, is not an understandable ingredient' of any parking regime backed by any legitimate interest:

On the day in question (27July 2017 08:25am) the driver (an uber private hire driver) had been requested by uber, to pick up a customer from Miller & Carter, Wilmslow. (I can provide proof in person, by accessing my uber app or a screenshot of the app, both will show the job details).
The car park operates a reception registered, free parking, with ANPR equipped cameras. The establishment was locked and secure, with no access to register the car
The customer (an employee of Miller & Carter) sent a text message indicating she would be out in a few minutes.
Shortly before 08:43am, the customer, came from the side of the building and entered the vehicle. The vehicle then left the car park at 08:43am.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant (my name);was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)(my name);. 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. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether 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, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at 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 £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that 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.
In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

10 Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Civil Enforcement Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary, given the fact that their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

nosferatu1001

You have just copied and pasted, with the spelling errors included, from C-Ms post as your point 2

A defence is a set of arguments
Not a narrative.

2) The defendants vehicle was never parked and no "parking contract" supposedly offered by the Claimant was accepted or entered into by performance. The vehicle was privately hired to pick up an employee from that location, arrived as requested at 8.25am and waited no longer than necessary to complete the pickup when the employee exited the building at 8.43am.

As an example. While strictly the second sentence is not an argument, it does help give context to what was meant.

dieseldo

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

You have just copied and pasted, with the spelling errors included, from C-Ms post as your point 2

A defence is a set of arguments
Not a narrative.

2) The defendants vehicle was never parked and no "parking contract" supposedly offered by the Claimant was accepted or entered into by performance. The vehicle was privately hired to pick up an employee from that location, arrived as requested at 8.25am and waited no longer than necessary to complete the pickup when the employee exited the building at 8.43am.

As an example. While strictly the second sentence is not an argument, it does help give context to what was meant.

firstly i apologise for my lack of understanding, are you saying i just keep it simple as far as the facts are concerned (as below),or do i try and elaborate my defence in point 2.or add more points,below 2 TIA


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No:

BETWEEN:

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The defendants vehicle was never parked and no "parking contract" supposedly offered by the Claimant was accepted or entered into by performance. The vehicle was privately hired to pick up an employee from that location, arrived as requested at 8.25am and waited no longer than necessary to complete the pickup when the employee exited the building at 8.43am.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant,(MY NAME), was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle . 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. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether 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, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. 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.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at 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 £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9.In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Civil Enforcement Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary, given the fact that their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.
In summary, it is the Defendant's position that 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 12 NOVEMBER 2018