CEL - proposed defence

gareth5590

Just a quick update - now had the Directions Questionnaire which I intend to complete as per the advice on the Newbie Forum. If I'm reading it correctly I also need to serve a copy on the parking company?

KeithP

gareth5590 wrote: »

...now had the Directions Questionnaire which I intend to complete as per the advice on the Newbie Forum.

When complete return it to the CCBC in the same manner and to the same email address that you sent your Defence.

gareth5590 wrote: »

If I'm reading it correctly I also need to serve a copy on the parking company?

That's correct. The address for serving documents on the Claimant is on your Claim Form.

Coupon-mad

This is all covered by bargepole in his Court Procedures thread, linked in the sticky.

gareth5590

Thank you.................................

gareth5590

Update........


Case now transferred to my local court. I've read the threads for next steps so prepared bundles including witness statements/photo's etc so I'm good to go once I get the court date.

gareth5590

Court date is set for early July and CEL need to pay £25 court fee in early June so I guess this will give me some indication, however I am all prepared for a hearing.

Coupon-mad

Assume they will, as you don't get told either way.

prepared bundles including witness statements/photo's etc

OK, show us the draft WS, and when is your deadline on the letter?

gareth5590

I need to serve papers on court/CEL in just under a month.................draft WS as below.


Thank you






IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXX

BETWEEN:

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________





I am XXXX of XXXX, the defendant in this matter, can state the following:





I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my witness statement in support of my defence as already filed.




I own a XXXX registration number XXXX and was driving the car on XXXX. I was due to collect my partner XXXX from XXXX. I cannot say exactly what time I did this but it was late in the evening so it would have been very dark.





I parked in an area near to the XXXX. I later found out this location is called XXXX. This is the first time I have ever parked here so I was totally unaware of the layout of the car park, signage or the history with parking enforcement at this location.





This did take place over 12 months ago. However a few weeks after I went to XXXX to collect XXXX, I received through the post, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL). This was for parking in XXXX without a ticket between XXXX hours and XXXX hours, for a total of XXXX minutes. This was the first indication I had of there being any kind of parking issue. Therefore, the night in question has stuck in my mind so I can accurately recall what I did and saw during that evening.





On the evening in question I can state the following:





From the direction of XXXX I drove along XXXX and turned left into XXXX Car Park area going down a short hill. This area was dark and I was aware of pedestrians walking around so I had my attention on them. I saw no signs indicating a charge for car parking on entering this area.





I then turned left looking for somewhere to park. This was a one way type system with the majority of parking on my right in an island type effect. Again this area was dark with two pubs nearby so I remained cautious driving slowly looking for people, along with a space to park. I saw no spaces and the road took me round in a 180 degree effect. The island for parking was now on my right and the XXXX on my left. Again I saw no spaces or signs and came to the junction which I had turned into initially looking for a space.





Due to the layout at this location I looked to my right to check that no vehicles were going down the short hill from XXXX. I then turned left and saw a clear area on the right near to the side entrance of XXXX. I parked my car there I would estimate for about 10 minutes and not the XXXX minutes alleged by CEL. I therefore take issue with their timings which appear to have come from a static camera at the site.





I recall the area was very dark with hardly any lighting. I did not see any signs in relation to parking. Any there would however have been impossible to see or read correctly due to the poor lighting.





I have parked in literally 1000’s of ‘pay and display’ car parks in over 30 years of driving. I always check the car park signs and purchase a ticket. Apart from this occasion I have never received a PCN. This clearly shows that I did not see the signage due to the fact it was poorly sited, unlit, unclear and totally inadequate.





If I had seen signs indicating payment I would have immediately paid or moved my vehicle.





CEL have provided me with two pictures (photocopies) of my vehicle at the material time after I made a subject of access request to them. They clearly show how dark the area is with insufficient light to see any signs let alone read them at night. I produce my copies of these as XXXX/1 and XXXX/2.





On XXXX I went back to the car park and took a series of photographs. I believe the car park was the same as it had been on XXXX. I produce the following photographs as my exhibits:





XXXX/3 – view looking down to entrance of the car park with unlit sign on the right


XXXX/4 – unlit sign at entrance


XXXX/5 – view of parking area


XXXX/6 – picture of an unlit sign


XXXX/7 – view of car park looking towards XXXX store


XXXX/8 – picture of main pay and display area


XXXX/9 – area where defendant parked





No contract has ever been produced between Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) and the landowners of the car park for me to inspect.





The sum pursued by the Claimant, £XXXX, is manifestly excessive. From the information I now have an evening ticket would have cost £1.50 to park from 1800 hours to 0800 hours, a period of 14 hours. If CEL’s timings are correct they state I was at the location for XXXX minutes.





The claim from CEL includes legal representative’s costs of £50. No explanation for this has ever been given to the Defendant and this appears to be that CEL are inflating their claim.





This case is fundamentally different to ParkingEye V Beavis as no signs were seen by the Defendant.





The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.





Signed XXXX


Date XXXX

1505grandad

Headed as Defence instead of Witness?

Coupon-mad

It needs the proper heading, as 1505grandad pointed out.

And go heavier on UNLIT SIGNS DESPITE YOU LOOKING FOR TERMS.

Not so much ''I didn't see the signs'' which is a weaker defence stance:

On XXXX I went back to the car park and took a series of photographs. I believe the car park was the same as it had been on XXXX, completely dark and with signs impossible to see without shining a torch up on them, but a driver would have to know they were there first. Car headlights would never pick out signage placed unobtrusively, ten feet high.

Different from, I was always taught:

This charge is unconscionable and breaches the consumer law doctrines of good faith and open dealing, given the facts, and it is fundamentally different from ParkingEye V Beavis as no signs were capable of being seen by the Defendant.

And you haven't addressed the scam of the fake added costs/damages, like this:

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

- Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model. The Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum is already hugely inflated for profit, not loss, and the Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages, as none exist.

- The Claimant cannot reasonably recover an additional three figure sum variously described as 'damages' or debt collection/legal costs which is more than the alleged parking charge, a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters. Those same letters cannot be charged for again (double recovery) by adding £60 on top.

And I would quote a bit from Beavis:

Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.

Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''