Recieved CEL court claim form

Redx

Mrswhite123 wrote: »

Hi, I have just received a claim form from CEL regarding a parking charge from March 2018. Ignored the previous parking tickets as advised!

But now have just received a court form after reading your forums I know I cannot just ignore this.So I have filled out the AOS and need help with my defence

I was not the driver and have refused to name who was, asking for £182 plus interest which is less than the last demand of £236. Do they just pluck theses costs out of thin air!

in answer to your last question above, its the original parking fee on the signs around the car park, plus court fees and interest, plus added costs they cannot charge

see this post https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=75348580&postcount=2 for the correct info

Mrswhite123

Original fee was100
Total due now £182
Interest £11.41
Total £193.41
Court fees £25
Legal representatives cost £50
Total amount £268
This is a amount showing on claim form

nosferatu1001

So no breakdown of how they got to £182? Thats because they ahve included costs they have never incurred, and costs the KEEPEr is noliable for. As they KNOW the keeper is not liable for these, under POFA2012, they are claiming money they KNOW they are not entitled to, and this is an abuse of process. You ask the court to strike it out on this basis. That is ONE LINE of your defence. Give the reference to POFA where your liability is capped. Dont ask where that is, read POFA2012 schedule 4 para 8 or 9 (pick the right one based on your circumstances)

Legal rep cost £50 - have they naed asolicitor? Yes or No. Do they have inhouse legal rep? Pretty sure NO. If so they CANNOT claim this fee, as this may only be claimed when a legally qualified person ahs filed the claim. THis is again an abuse of process. This is ANOTHER LINE in your defence..

Get on with showing us a draft.

Mrswhite123

Hi Forum,

This is my defense letter, please can you read and tell me if you think its ok or if i should add or remove any text. Thanks in advance....

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number ****
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v ******
Defence Statement

I am ******* the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle *****. I currently reside at ***
The Claim Form issued on the **** by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited”.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:

1-The claimant is not making use of Keeper Liability Provisions. The claimants PCN did not refer to schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. The “Issue Notice to keeper” 14-day time limits for using schedule 4 has exceeded, therefore the claimant had no basis whatsoever to write to me (the registered keeper), except for the single purpose allowed under the DVLA KADOE rules, namely to ‘enquire who was driving’ The claimant did not do this nor did the claimant provide any proof or evidence who the driver was. The claimant must not use the data for any other purpose whatsoever, and certainly not to pursue me (the registered keeper). I am not lawfully required to offer the identity of the driver in this case.


2- This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

3- This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
(c) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

4-I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions. The PCN was issued 28 days after the incident.
Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £193.41 plus costs for outstanding debt and damages.

4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

6/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

8/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

9/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
(a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 14th January 2019
(b) send a template, well known to be generic cut and paste particulars of the claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due their own choice of non – POFA documentation.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true to the best of my knowledge.

Signed
Date

Le_Kirk

DEFENCE is spelled as shown (not defense) It is not a DEFENCE STATEMENT just DEFENCE. It should be written in the third person, i.e. your point 4. [STRIKE]I[/STRIKE] The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof....... and later ...... this Claimant is unable to hold [STRIKE]me [/STRIKE]the defendant liable.
You also seem to have 2 x point 4.

Mrswhite123

Thanks,I had noticed my spelling mistake after I had sent it,will amend, other than that, do you think my defence is ok! Thanks again.

Mrswhite123

Just received a DQ ,as told I probably would. Question : what is the legal time Given from the incident date to PCN issue date. I have read it must be 28 days after parking ticket was issued , is this true?

Le_Kirk

Found this in NEWBIE thread: -

If they are a firm which alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 (which they don't have to!) then a postal PCN must arrive by day 14 if there was no windscreen ticket.

Or, the NTK must arrive with you between day 29 and day 57 if there was a windscreen PCN.

Is that what you were after?

Mrswhite123

Thanks for the above. Just to clarify it was a camera shot in and out of parking, the date of pcn issue was 25/04/2018 and incident was 31/03/ 2018.

Coupon-mad

Great, then they cannot hold you liable as keeper.

If you were not driving, or can honestly say you cannot recall and more than one person drives that car, then you should win your case on lack of POFA compliance/no liability passes to the keeper.