CEL PCN Help Required.

mattybill

Hi everyone,

I seem to be getting myself in a pickle, I've read through the Newbies guide and I'm still unsure what to do. Here's a quick rundown.

I received a PCN through the post from Civil Enforcement LTD on the 14/09/18 for not purchasing a ticket straight away. From 6pm until midnight the charge was £1 ( I wasn't aware you had to pay after 6pm - I arrived at 7:13pm) my error I know but as soon as i realised (within the hour) I paid the £1.

Now me being me Instead of seeking advice from this extremely helpful forum I relied on the word of family and friends and used their internal appeal on the website. I didn't specifically say I was the driver of the vehicle but I still wrote an apology. Me being 20 and no experience with anything like this I wasn't aware this was a stupid thing to do. Of course the appeal was unsuccessful.

Now with general word of mouth with PCN's is to ignore them (Now i know not to do this and appeal properly using the templates) I went over the 28 day time for the POPLA appeal. My 10 digit number now comes as invalid on their website.

I've now received the "Final reminder before legal action" letter demanding £100 in 14 days.

What do i do now?

- Is there much I can do? Do i just wait for the bailiff stage on the Newbies guide and hope they pull out or what?

Thanks for taking the time to help me out

Coupon-mad

There is no bailiff stage!

Debt collectors are not bailiffs; no-one comes knocking (please stop listening to family/friends who might tell you wrongly about this).

Wait for a court claim then do as advised in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. CEL claims are always defendable.

Annoyingly, had you sent CEL the NEWBIES appeal template...they'd have cancelled, no POPLA, nothing. Within a week or two...

Quentin

The newbies guide doesn't have a bailiff stage! You do not simply lie back and await bailiffs at your door!!


So read up again in the FAQ on how to defend a claim

mattybill

Thanks for the quick reply!

Okay I'll wait and see what happens,

Yeah I should have came straight here but it didn't even cross my mind, at least now I know for future charges.

Thankyou

Redx

you also now know NOT to listen to family and friends who know nothing but have see CAN`T PAY and THE SHERIFFS ARE COMING and now think they are experts on this !!


so now YOU can educate THEM

Quentin

mattybill wrote: »

Thanks for the quick reply!

Okay I'll wait and see what happens,

Yeah I should have came straight here but it didn't even cross my mind, at least now I know for future charges.

Thankyou

Why will you wait and see???


You need to deal with this letter you have received


As you have been advised, read up on this in the FAQ


#2 advises on court claims from the LBCCA (which you have) right through to thehearing

mattybill

Quentin wrote: »

Why will you wait and see???


You need to deal with this letter you have received


As you have been advised, read up on this in the FAQ


#2 advises on court claims from the LBCCA (which you have) right through to thehearing

I don't need to respond to this letter as it's my final chance to pay before they take legal action and begin the court process? Theres no official document stating any court actions yet just says I have 14 days to pay before they start taking action. So as said earlier I need to wait for their court letter.


EDIT** Sorry I'm getting confused with all the different letters and what not - I see what you mean about the Letter before claim

mattybill

Good evening everyone!
Blimey how time flies. Over a year has gone and I have now received my 'Claim Form' - Issued on 28th Feb 2020
I submitted my acknowledgement of service on the 29/02/2020 and they have confirmed it was received on 02/03/2020.
I have made a defence and mostly used CouponMad's brilliant template regarding inflated additional charges. I have also added a few points found on other defences. Please note i haven't attached the Appendixes as i'm going to print these off and scan them in once the whole document is printed. 
If you guys could please give some feedback on the Defence I would greatly appreciate it!

In the Northampton County Court Business Centre

Claim No: xxxxxxxxxxx

Civil Enforcement Limited 

Claimant

And

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Defendant 

DEFENCE

I am xxxxxxxxxxxx, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxxxx. I deny that I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds.

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that the driver of the vehicle entered into any contractual agreement,whether express, implied, or by conduct, to pay a ‘parking charge’ to the Claimant.

1. In relation to parking on private land, it is settled law from the Supreme Court, that a parking charge must be set at a level which includes recovery of the costs of operating scheme. However, this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £182. This figure is a penalty, far exceeding the £85 parking charge in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beaviscase.

1. The global sum claimed is unconscionable and it was not shown in large lettering on any consumer signs, and it is averred that the charge offends against Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’), where s71(2) creates a duty on the Court to consider the fairness of a consumer contract. The court’s attention is drawn (but not limited to) parts 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the list of terms that are likely to be unfair

1. Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs-which is denied-they are attempting double recovery of costs.The sum exceeds the maximum amount which can be recovered from a registered keeper, as prescribed in Schedule 4, Section 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’). It is worth noting that in the Beavis case where the driver was known, the Supreme Court considered and referred more than once to the POFA.

1. Claims pleaded on this basis by multiple parking firms have routinely been struck out ab initio in various County Court areas in England and Wales since 2019. Recent Examples are appended to this defence; a February 2020 Order from District Judge Fay Wright, sitting at Skipton County Court (Appendix A) and a similar Order from Deputy District Judge Josephs, sitting at Warwick County Court. (Appendix

1. Applications by AOS member parking firms to try to reach the usually low threshold to set aside multiple strike-out orders have been reviewed by more than one area Circuit Judge, including His Honour Iain Hughes QC, occasioning District Judge Grand at Southampton to hear submissions from a barrister on 11th November 2019.The court refused to set aside the Orders and, tellingly, no appeal was made.

1. The Judge found that the claims-both trying to claim £160, with some ten or more similar cases stayed-represented an abuse of process that ‘tainted’ each claim. It was held to be not in the public interest for a court to let such claims proceed and merely disallow £60 in a case-by-case basis, thus restricting and reserving the proper application of the relevant consumer rights legislation only for those relatively few consumers who reach hearing stage. That Judgement is appended.

1. The CCBC and/or the allocated Court Judge is invited to read the Appendices at the earliest opportunity. The Defendant avers that parking firm claims which add  a duplicitous ‘costs’ sum to the parking charge are now easily identified to be unlawful. Such claims are against the public interest, requiring no further assessment, and listing such cases for trial should be avoided. The Court is invited to exercise its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 to strike out this claim, which is entirely tainted by abuse of process and breaches of the CRA.

1. Should this claim continue, the Claimant will no doubt try to mislead the court by pointing to their Trade Association ‘ATA’ Code of Practice (‘CoP’) that now includes a hastily-added clause 'allowing' added costs/damages.The Defendant points out that the CoP is a self-serving document,written in the parking firms’ interests. Further, the admin fee’ model was reportedly invented by a member of the British Parking Association Board, Gary Osner, whose previous firm, Roxburghe (UK) Limited,folded after being declared ‘unfit’ by the Office of Fair Trading who refused to renew their consumer credit licence due to ‘unfair and misleading’ business practices. Mr Osner states in an article that has been in the public domain since 2018:''I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all.''

1. The two competing ‘race to the bottom’ ATAs have engineered a veil of legitimacy to protect this industry for too long. They are not regulators and have failed consumers so badly, that Parliament is currently working on replacing them with a new CoP overseen by the Secretary of State, following the enactment of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. Many courts have now recognised that a predatory parking firm Claimant using unfair and predatory business practices and inflating their claims with false ‘admin fees’, is not the ‘innocent party’ in a dispute. In stark contrast to the BPA Board member’s mindset, the will of Parliament as set out in the new 2019 Actis very much consumer-focused, aiming for:''good practice...in the operation or management of private parking facilities as appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable having regard to the interests of persons using such facilities.'

1. In the alternative, the defence is prejudiced and the court is invited to note that, contrary to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims,the Letter Before Claim omitted evidence of any breach and failed to append the wording of the sign or consumer notice. Further, the Particulars of Claim are embarrassing and incoherent, lacking specificity are the location of the event and status of the contracting parties and failing to detail any conduct or liability that could give rise to a cause of action. There is insufficient detail to ascertain the nature, basis and facts of the case but the sum claimed includes unrecoverable costs/damages and is clearly an abuse of process.

1. The court is invited to note that the Beavis case would not have passed had it been pleaded in damages by ParkingEye, and the penalty rule applies to charges that are penal or unconscionable in their construction. The Supreme Court held at [14]‘‘where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty.’’And at[99]‘‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged.’’

1. Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 parking charge which included all operational costs and was constructed in such away and offered on such ‘brief and clear’ signs with terms set in the interests of the landowner, that they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being struck out as penal and unrecoverable. The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings set a high bar that other claims fail to reach. Unusually for this industry, it is worth noting that ParkingEye do not add false debt letter costs/damages’ to their parking charges and as a consequence, their own claims have escaped any reports of being summarily struck out.

1. This Claimant has failed to plead their case, or to set out their terms or construct their contractual charges in the same way as in Beavis and the penalty rule remains firmly engaged. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court,deterrence is likely to be penal if  there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish drivers nor to present a motorist with concealed pitfalls or traps,nor to claim an unconscionable total sum.

1. Should this poorly pleaded claim not be summarily struck out for any/all of the reasons stated above, the Defendant sets out this defence as clearly as possible in the circumstances, insofar as the facts below are known.

1. The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with ANPR images of the vehicle questioning the legitimacy of the information supplied by the Claimant. 

1. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is positioned on an access ramp (visible on Google Maps) in which anyone attempting to read the small font would be unable to do so safely and easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 

1. Further and in the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or the necessary landowner authorisation to issue PCNs under these circumstances and to pursue keepers by means of civil litigation. It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period and there is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this particular Claimant (Civil Enforcement Limited). Any purported landowner 'contract' which fails to properly identify the two contracting parties and/or which is in any way redacted (including the signatories, which in some parking claims have been revealed not to be that of the landowner) should be disregarded, along with any undated and/or unsubstantiated records, documents, boundary maps or aerial views, or photos which are capable of manipulation.

1. For any or all of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this claim.

1. In the matter of costs. If the claim is not struck out, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) the Court to reserve,assess and award the Defendant’s Summary Costs Assessment, to be filed and served at Witness Statement stage in anticipation of a typical late Notice of Discontinuance (‘NoD’) from this Claimant.

1. At NoD stage, or at a hearing if the case proceeds that far, the Court will be taken to facts to support a finding of wholly unreasonable conduct by this Claimant. Pursuant To CPR 46.5, whilst indemnity costs cannot exceed two thirds of the applicable rate if using legal representation, the Defendant notes that LiP costs are not necessarily capped at £19 ph. The Defendant will ask for a fairly assessed rate for the hours spent on this case, referencing Spencer & anor v Paul Jones Financial Services Ltd.

1. In summary, the Claimant's Particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed. This Claimant knew, or should have known, that an exaggerated ‘parking charges claim where the alleged ‘debt’ exceeds the £100 ATA CoP ceiling is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA, The Judge in the instant case is taken to the Appendices, demonstrating that several court areas continue to summarily strike out private parking cases that include an extravagant and unlawful costs sum.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Defendant's signature:

Defendant’s name:

Date:

---------------------------------------
Many Thanks

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 2nd March, you have until 4pm on Monday 30th March 2020 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To file a Defence, follow the guidance in this post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76880595#Comment_76880595

Guidance on creating a Defence is also in that thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Coupon-mad

I have now received my 'Claim Form' - Issued on 28th Feb 2020
I submitted my acknowledgement of service on the 29/02/2020 

Too rushed - you cut down your 33 days by four! 

Never mind, your defence is almost good to go; glad to see people are using the template even after a long gap in your posting you found it and downloaded it which is great to know.

You need to make sure your numbering is put right and, of course, that the sunglasses face isn't in your actual defence (caused by the forum glitch of a B followed by a bracket!).  I will put that right on the next edit of the template.

The only thing is I can't tell from the defence what sort of car park it is or what the allegation is and what happened - does this mean that no letter has shown you any photos at all, of the signs, the car, the timings, nothing?  Make that clearer: 

The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with ANPR images of the vehicle questioning the legitimacy of the information supplied by the Claimant. 

Add this as 2 extra points, placed before the point (around #18 maybe) starting 'Should this poorly pleaded claim...' because this will feature in my next edit, and note that all case law names should be in italics if you want it looking right to please the Judge, which you do want!:

xx.  In the pre-Beavis case in ParkingEye v Somerfield at [419], the High Court held: ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  Bailii link: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html#para419

xx.  This Claimant's Particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, a cynical attempt to go behind the Beavis case paragraphs 98 193 and 198, all of which confirm that their Lordships held that the construction of a parking charge that is not unconscionable 'must' already include the operational costs of the regime.

*you can include a bailii link in a defence or WS and don't have to put it in full or attach it.  Like the Beavis case, these are well known and no need to exhibit them, but a link might assist the Judge, and IMHO it can't hurt.

mattybill

Thankyou so much for your reply and help. I've adjusted the defence accordingly to your feedback.

With the bit you quoted, I've received all the standard letters including the following information:
 "The violation date" , time in, time out, car reg and car park. However they have never sent me any pictures of the car in the car park or even a picture of the reg. I thought maybe this was worth mentioning. They are claiming against me for a breach of T+C's as I didn't get a ticket within the 'Grace Period' I can't use this as a defence as I arrived at 19:13 and got my ticket at 20:13. It was dark and we genuinely didn't see the pay and display machines as they are so tucked up out the way. Annoying thing was from 18:00 - Midnight the ticket cost was £1 which I ended up paying just not within the time limit ( I still have the Pay and Display ticket). So this whole par-larva is over a £1 ticket which i paid!!!

EDIT: Maybe I should just remove this whole point of "The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with ANPR images of the vehicle questioning the legitimacy of the information supplied by the Claimant."  - as its a bit weak what do you think?

Here is the adjusted defence, the numbering and italics is correct on my document the forum seems to change it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Northampton County Court Business Centre

Claim No: xxxxxxx

Civil Enforcement Limited 

Claimant

And

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Defendant 

DEFENCE

I am xxxxxxxxxx, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxxxx. I deny that I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds.

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that the driver of the vehicle entered into any contractual agreement,whether express, implied, or by conduct, to pay a ‘parking charge’ to the Claimant.

1. In relation to parking on private land, it is settled law from the Supreme Court, that a parking charge must be set at a level which includes recovery of the costs of operating scheme. However, this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £182. This figure is a penalty, far exceeding the £85 parking charge in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beaviscase.

1. The global sum claimed is unconscionable and it was not shown in large lettering on any consumer signs, and it is averred that the charge offends against Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’), where s71(2) creates a duty on the Court to consider the fairness of a consumer contract. The court’s attention is drawn (but not limited to) parts 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the list of terms that are likely to be unfair

1. Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs-which is denied-they are attempting double recovery of costs.The sum exceeds the maximum amount which can be recovered from a registered keeper, as prescribed in Schedule 4, Section 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’). It is worth noting that in the Beavis case where the driver was known, the Supreme Court considered and referred more than once to the POFA.

1. Claims pleaded on this basis by multiple parking firms have routinely been struck out ab initio in various County Court areas in England and Wales since 2019. Recent Examples are appended to this defence; a February 2020 Order from District Judge Fay Wright, sitting at Skipton County Court (Appendix A) and a similar Order from Deputy District Judge Josephs, sitting at Warwick County Court. (Appendix

1. Applications by AOS member parking firms to try to reach the usually low threshold to set aside multiple strike-out orders have been reviewed by more than one area Circuit Judge, including His Honour Iain Hughes QC, occasioning District Judge Grand at Southampton to hear submissions from a barrister on 11th November 2019.The court refused to set aside the Orders and, tellingly, no appeal was made.

1. The Judge found that the claims-both trying to claim £160, with some ten or more similar cases stayed-represented an abuse of process that ‘tainted’ each claim. It was held to be not in the public interest for a court to let such claims proceed and merely disallow £60 in a case-by-case basis, thus restricting and reserving the proper application of the relevant consumer rights legislation only for those relatively few consumers who reach hearing stage. That Judgement is appended.

1. The CCBC and/or the allocated Court Judge is invited to read the Appendices at the earliest opportunity. The Defendant avers that parking firm claims which add  a duplicitous ‘costs’ sum to the parking charge are now easily identified to be unlawful. Such claims are against the public interest, requiring no further assessment, and listing such cases for trial should be avoided. The Court is invited to exercise its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 to strike out this claim, which is entirely tainted by abuse of process and breaches of the CRA.

1. Should this claim continue, the Claimant will no doubt try to mislead the court by pointing to their Trade Association ‘ATA’ Code of Practice (‘CoP’) that now includes a hastily-added clause 'allowing' added costs/damages.The Defendant points out that the CoP is a self-serving document,written in the parking firms’ interests. Further, the admin fee’ model was reportedly invented by a member of the British Parking Association Board, Gary Osner, whose previous firm, Roxburghe (UK) Limited,folded after being declared ‘unfit’ by the Office of Fair Trading who refused to renew their consumer credit licence due to ‘unfair and misleading’ business practices. Mr Osner states in an article that has been in the public domain since 2018:''I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all.''

1. The two competing ‘race to the bottom’ ATAs have engineered a veil of legitimacy to protect this industry for too long. They are not regulators and have failed consumers so badly, that Parliament is currently working on replacing them with a new CoP overseen by the Secretary of State, following the enactment of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. Many courts have now recognised that a predatory parking firm Claimant using unfair and predatory business practices and inflating their claims with false ‘admin fees’, is not the ‘innocent party’ in a dispute. In stark contrast to the BPA Board member’s mindset, the will of Parliament as set out in the new 2019 Actis very much consumer-focused, aiming for: ''good practice...in the operation or management of private parking facilities as appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable having regard to the interests of persons using such facilities.'

1. In the alternative, the defence is prejudiced and the court is invited to note that, contrary to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims,the Letter Before Claim omitted evidence of any breach and failed to append the wording of the sign or consumer notice. Further, the Particulars of Claim are embarrassing and incoherent, lacking specificity are the location of the event and status of the contracting parties and failing to detail any conduct or liability that could give rise to a cause of action. There is insufficient detail to ascertain the nature, basis and facts of the case but the sum claimed includes unrecoverable costs/damages and is clearly an abuse of process.

1. The court is invited to note that the Beavis case would not have passed had it been pleaded in damages by ParkingEye, and the penalty rule applies to charges that are penal or unconscionable in their construction. The Supreme Court held at [14]‘‘where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty.’’And at[99]‘‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged.’’

1. Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 parking charge which included all operational costs and was constructed in such away and offered on such ‘brief and clear’ signs with terms set in the interests of the landowner, that they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being struck out as penal and unrecoverable. The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings set a high bar that other claims fail to reach. Unusually for this industry, it is worth noting that ParkingEye do not add false debt letter costs/damages’ to their parking charges and as a consequence, their own claims have escaped any reports of being summarily struck out.

1. This Claimant has failed to plead their case, or to set out their terms or construct their contractual charges in the same way as in Beavis and the penalty rule remains firmly engaged. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court,deterrence is likely to be penal if  there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish drivers nor to present a motorist with concealed pitfalls or traps, nor to claim an unconscionable total sum.

1. In the pre-Beavis case in ParkingEye v Somerfield at [419], the High Court held: ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  Bailii link: CANT POST LINKS BUT CORRECT IN DOC

1. This Claimant's Particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, a cynical attempt to go behind the Beavis case paragraphs 98 193 and 198, all of which confirm that their Lordships held that the construction of a parking charge that is not unconscionable 'must' already include the operational costs of the regime.

1. Should this poorly pleaded claim not be summarily struck out for any/all of the reasons stated above, the Defendant sets out this defence as clearly as possible in the circumstances, insofar as the facts below are known.

1. The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with ANPR images of the vehicle questioning the legitimacy of the information supplied by the Claimant. Instead they

1. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is positioned on an access ramp (visible on Google Maps) in which anyone attempting to read the small font would be unable to do so safely and easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 

1. Further and in the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or the necessary landowner authorisation to issue PCNs under these circumstances and to pursue keepers by means of civil litigation. It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period and there is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this particular Claimant (Civil Enforcement Limited). Any purported landowner 'contract' which fails to properly identify the two contracting parties and/or which is in any way redacted (including the signatories, which in some parking claims have been revealed not to be that of the landowner) should be disregarded, along with any undated and/or unsubstantiated records, documents, boundary maps or aerial views, or photos which are capable of manipulation.

1. For any or all of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this claim.

1. In the matter of costs. If the claim is not struck out, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) the Court to reserve,assess and award the Defendant’s Summary Costs Assessment, to be filed and served at Witness Statement stage in anticipation of a typical late Notice of Discontinuance (‘NoD’) from this Claimant.

1. At NoD stage, or at a hearing if the case proceeds that far, the Court will be taken to facts to support a finding of wholly unreasonable conduct by this Claimant. Pursuant To CPR 46.5, whilst indemnity costs cannot exceed two thirds of the applicable rate if using legal representation, the Defendant notes that LiP costs are not necessarily capped at £19 ph. The Defendant will ask for a fairly assessed rate for the hours spent on this case, referencing Spencer & anor v Paul Jones Financial Services Ltd.

1. In summary, the Claimant's Particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed. This Claimant knew, or should have known, that an exaggerated ‘parking charges claim where the alleged ‘debt’ exceeds the £100 ATA CoP ceiling is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA, The Judge in the instant case is taken to the Appendices, demonstrating that several court areas continue to summarily strike out private parking cases that include an extravagant and unlawful costs sum.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Defendant's signature:

Defendant’s name:

Date: