Cel parking defence help

Coupon-mad

It will do, but you've copied quite an old one. Is all this TRUE in your case?

it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

Might be true but check?

a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

Doubt it. This will have gone to the old address.

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 12th June 2017.

2017??

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

They didn't send a separate POC to you.

bmw25

Job Coupon-mad,

Ah right yes I can see I didn’t see the 2017 bit was meant to add in 2019, any pointers towards a more recent post I was searching quite a few yesterday but didn’t know what to exactly look for.

Also the part about signed by a legal person how would I find this as I was sent a copy of claim forms and POC as I requested this a while back but the original application pack was not provided.

In regards to a) listed below, no compliant letters were received at my partners address as I spoke to her about potential letters she advised there wasn’t any apart from this claim form.

bmw25

HI GUYS MY DEADLINE IS TOMORROW THIS IS WHAT I HAVE:

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited v XXXXXXXXXXXXX

I am the defendant in this matter and previous registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX. I currently reside at XXXXXXXXX.

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

1. The Claim Form issued on 14/01/2019 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 (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

a) There was no compliant received at the previous address - ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, I have a written and statement of truth from ex-partner who is the occupant at previous address.

b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information and evidence of what has occurred in the accusations made.

c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant is unaware of what the alleged breach was and how the original charge arose; the defendant has never been issued with a copy of the alleged contract (This was requested from the Northampton County Court Business Centre but was advised this is not possible).

e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of 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. Whilst the original PCN was dated 10/04/2018, nothing was received at the previous address and if anything was mailed I would like the claimant to provide proof of delivery e.g. Signed delivery confirmation.
3a. The first I heard about the claimant was on the 9th January 2019 when I was advised by my ex-partner that I was being taken to court and that the paperwork has been sent back to original sender as that is not my address, this makes it highly unlikely that anything was posted in the first instance and they are trying to make a “Quick Penny “.

3b. The claimant was contacted by telephone on the 24th January 2019 to discuss the claims as the defendant did not know anything about this, whilst on the phone the claimant was asked the following:
1.) Can you enforce a PCN? The reply was yes we can and we are legally allowed to do so.
2.) How has the sum of £193.57 been summed up, a breakdown was requested of incurred costs? – Claimant advised the pricing goes as follows: £60, £100, probably £150. The signage at the car park advises £100, this shows the claimant is pulling numbers out of thin air and has no actual process.

3.) instead the defendant was told it has now gone up to £268 with no breakdown as to how this has happened.

4.) Defendant has recorded audio and call logs for the conversation with the claimant and will provide to court of required.

3c. A signed letter with a payment of £5.00 was made to the claimant out of good faith and not admitting to the claimed. The claim is based on the fact that the defendant overstayed for 40 minutes, where the parking rate is at £0.50 for 30 minutes and the defendant believed this was enough to compensate the claimant, the payment was sent back advising it is not enough and a lesser payment than £140.00 only could be given.
3d. A SAR request was sent via signed mail and the claimants still have not responded with the data they hold on the defendant which is in breach of compliance with GDPR.
3e. Evidence of receipts and letters sent to CEL have been recorded and can be provided on request by the court.


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 £268 for outstanding debt and damages.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. The debt has increased from £60 to £268 with no explanation or breakdown of this increase provided to the defendant. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

5. This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye 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.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

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

7. 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.

8. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

9. 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.

10. 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.


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; whilst particulars of claim are stated as ‘Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge’ there is again no mention of how the parking charge was incurred or in what way the defendant breached the alleged contract.

(b) Sent obviously generic template, cut and paste letters, stating no 'Particulars' of claim which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to 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 confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed: XXXXXXXXXX
Date: XXXXXXXX

Jox

Delete your name

Coupon-mad

That's a really old & rambling defence. Just use bargepole's concise one instead.

bmw25

Thanks where can I find bargepoles defence from ?

KeithP

bmw25 wrote: »

Thanks where can I find bargepoles defence from ?

Where all the other information can be found - in the NEWBIES thread.
There's a link to that thread in one of my earlier posts.

Still left your full name visible in post #24.

bmw25

Thanks I will remove this from a pc in the morning I’m using a phone and it won’t let me edit

bmw25

Managed to remove it thanks guys really appreciate all the help