We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Court Claim Form received - Civil Enforcement Ltd - Defence Letter Review
Rover39
Posts: 5 Forumite
Hi All,
Firstly I would like to thank the members of this forum for providing the invaluable information and guidance.
I had recently received the Court Claim Form received for Civil Enforcement Ltd.
As suggested in the threads on this forum I had filled the AoS and denied the claim.
I have now prepared the defence statement and looking forward for your support to review this and suggest if this is appropriate and complete. Please suggest any amendment or points that may have been missed.
Thanks & Regards
RJ
---- Defence statement below ----
In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: **********
Between:
Civil Enforcement Ltd v **********
Statement of Defence
I am **********, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle **********. I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons.
1. The Claim Form issued on 01/02/2019 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. The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
a. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
c. The Claim Form Particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 – they are 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 original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
d. The separate particulars of claim are vague and do not explain how the charge has been calculated as required by the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols.
e. The Claimant has incorrectly calculated the interest from the date of the alleged parking event and not from the date of any cause of action or costs. No cause of action could possibly arise until 28 days after the Parking Notice was served as stated in the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.
3. 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.
4. The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 (PoFA 2012):
a. The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. The Defendant is the registered keeper but was not the Driver. In order for the Claimant to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, they must do so within the strict requirements of PoFA 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: “If POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.”
b. The Claimant did not issue a “Notice to Driver” at the time of the alleged offence; therefore, the Claimant is put to strict proof that a “Notice to Keeper” was issued within the required timeframe of 14 days after the alleged offence in accordance with PoFA 2012 para. 9(5).
c. In failing to comply with the PoFA 2012, the Claimant cannot hold the Keeper liable for any of the claim.
5. 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.
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.
11. Even if a contract had been established it would be void. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant was not acting in “good faith” and that the charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically regulation 62(4).
a. The Defendant believes that the charges added Legal Representative (£50) are fake and were not incurred by the Claimant and therefore cannot be recovered in Court as part of this claim.
b. Even if the Legal representative’s cost of £50 is genuine it cannot be recovered in Court as this does not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 27.14
c. If the £50 legal cost to prepare the claim was not incurred, the statement of truth must be false.
d. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it paid any debt recovery agency or legal representative in escalating the matter. If incurred – the defendant believes this consists of the administration staff of the Claimant performing their normal duties. The Defendant believes this is another example of the Claimant artificially inflating the amount of the claim.
e.It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Defendant to spend hours on their own Witness Statement against a vexatious litigant who then discontinues. Research shows that this Claimant is regularly observed as being in pursuit of default judgments to use as an aggressive form of debt collection, with no intention of paying for or attending the majority of hearings.
12. The Claimants reference to the Beavis vs Parking Eye judgement is clearly included as an erroneous means to attempt to gain advantage by suggesting the judgement would seal this case.
13. As the claimant has not identified the driver, they cannot assume the keeper/driver are one and the same at the time of the supposed contravention. Reference POFA 2012.
In light of the reasons above, the Defendant respectfully asks the court to strike out this claim with immediate effect.
The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. 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 facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Name/signature
Date
Firstly I would like to thank the members of this forum for providing the invaluable information and guidance.
I had recently received the Court Claim Form received for Civil Enforcement Ltd.
As suggested in the threads on this forum I had filled the AoS and denied the claim.
I have now prepared the defence statement and looking forward for your support to review this and suggest if this is appropriate and complete. Please suggest any amendment or points that may have been missed.
Thanks & Regards
RJ
---- Defence statement below ----
In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: **********
Between:
Civil Enforcement Ltd v **********
Statement of Defence
I am **********, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle **********. I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons.
1. The Claim Form issued on 01/02/2019 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. The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
a. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
c. The Claim Form Particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 – they are 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 original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
d. The separate particulars of claim are vague and do not explain how the charge has been calculated as required by the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols.
e. The Claimant has incorrectly calculated the interest from the date of the alleged parking event and not from the date of any cause of action or costs. No cause of action could possibly arise until 28 days after the Parking Notice was served as stated in the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.
3. 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.
4. The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 (PoFA 2012):
a. The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. The Defendant is the registered keeper but was not the Driver. In order for the Claimant to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, they must do so within the strict requirements of PoFA 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: “If POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.”
b. The Claimant did not issue a “Notice to Driver” at the time of the alleged offence; therefore, the Claimant is put to strict proof that a “Notice to Keeper” was issued within the required timeframe of 14 days after the alleged offence in accordance with PoFA 2012 para. 9(5).
c. In failing to comply with the PoFA 2012, the Claimant cannot hold the Keeper liable for any of the claim.
5. 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.
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.
11. Even if a contract had been established it would be void. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant was not acting in “good faith” and that the charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically regulation 62(4).
a. The Defendant believes that the charges added Legal Representative (£50) are fake and were not incurred by the Claimant and therefore cannot be recovered in Court as part of this claim.
b. Even if the Legal representative’s cost of £50 is genuine it cannot be recovered in Court as this does not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 27.14
c. If the £50 legal cost to prepare the claim was not incurred, the statement of truth must be false.
d. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it paid any debt recovery agency or legal representative in escalating the matter. If incurred – the defendant believes this consists of the administration staff of the Claimant performing their normal duties. The Defendant believes this is another example of the Claimant artificially inflating the amount of the claim.
e.It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Defendant to spend hours on their own Witness Statement against a vexatious litigant who then discontinues. Research shows that this Claimant is regularly observed as being in pursuit of default judgments to use as an aggressive form of debt collection, with no intention of paying for or attending the majority of hearings.
12. The Claimants reference to the Beavis vs Parking Eye judgement is clearly included as an erroneous means to attempt to gain advantage by suggesting the judgement would seal this case.
13. As the claimant has not identified the driver, they cannot assume the keeper/driver are one and the same at the time of the supposed contravention. Reference POFA 2012.
In light of the reasons above, the Defendant respectfully asks the court to strike out this claim with immediate effect.
The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. 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 facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Name/signature
Date
0
Comments
-
No, that should just read 'defence'. Seems you've read an old one.Statement of Defence
Take a look instead at bargepole's concise defence example from the NEWBIES thread 2nd post, and adapt that.
What was the alleged contravention?
What sort of car park?
What happened?
Did you appeal, or not?
What's the 'date of issue' of the claim, top right?
What does it say on the left, under PARTICULARS OF CLAIM?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
I'm really sorry to jump on this post but I don't really know how to use the site properly, so apologies, I have just searched civil enforcement ltd and this thread came up.
I am from Northern Ireland and my husband received a parking fine for parking in a private park outside a shop. He returned late that day and parked in a different parking bay (20.10.18) but received a fine from Civil Enforcement Ltd. He was told by numerous people to ignore it, but now we are receiving letters from a debt collection agency ZZPS advising us they are referring our case to a solicitors office and i'm unsure how to proceed.
Can I also add that the shop is now under new management and have scrapped the parking restrictions.
Any advise or help you have would be gratefully received, or if you even explain to me where I should try and post this.
Sorry again for jumping on your post Rover39.learning to live again, slowly but determined £30k in debt, but dealing with it and proud0 -
You should go to the NEWBIE thread HERE and read this bit: -
....... and if you are still struggling, start your own thread by clicking the NEW THREAD button on the first page of the forum.Q - ''I'm in Scotland/NI, so is the advice different?''
A - IF THE EVENT TOOK PLACE IN SCOTLAND OR NI, WE SUGGEST YOU DO (ALWAYS!) COMPLAIN TO STORE MANAGEMENT IF YOUR PCN IS FROM A RETAIL PARK, BUT DO NOT APPEAL, UNLESS YOUR CAR IS A COMPANY/HIRE/LEASED VEHICLE, IN WHICH CASE, APPEAL AS HIRER/LESSEE (SEE * AT THE FOOT OF THIS POST).
IN SCOTLAND/NI, CERTAINLY COMPLAIN TO THE RETAILERS, BUT IGNORE THE PARKING FIRM UNLESS YOU GET A CLAIM.
IN SCOTLAND THIS IS EXCEEDINGLY RARE, AND DEFENDABLE BY A KEEPER, WHO CURRENTLY HAS A FAR MORE PROTECTED POSITION IN LAW THAN AN ADMITTED DRIVER.
WHEN IGNORING IN SCOTLAND/NI, KEEP ALL LETTERS. DO NOT THROW THEM AWAY, FOR 5 YEARS.0 -
@coupon-mad, Thanks for looking into it and pointing me in correct direction.
I am reviewing bargepole's example and updating my defence.
In the meantime, please find below the requested details:
Particulars of claim:
Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the terms + conditions (T+Cs). Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T+Cs of use. ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site.
Debt + damages claimed the sum of 196.00
Violation date: **/04/2018 time in: 10:12 time out: 12:39
PCN Ref: Ref**********
Car registration no.: ******* Car park:- ***Name of Commercial Area***
Total due- 196.00 ***ce-service.Co.Uk or tel:01158225020) the claimant claims the sum of 208.45 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 12.45 interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 rate 8.00% pa from dates above to- 31/01/19 Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to Judgment- 0.05
Total debt and interest due- 208.45
What sort of car park?
The claim only mentions the name of the commercial area that has few roads with parking around it, doesn't give any detail about where the incident took place.
What happened?
I have never been near the commercial area mentioned. In fact I was travelling during that period and not in town on the date of the incident mentioned. Have spoken to other named drivers but they don't seem to remember anything.
Did you appeal, or not?
No. I believe I must have overlooked the letter if received.
What's the 'date of issue' of the claim, top right?
01/02/20180 -
With a Claim Issue Date of 1st February, you had until Wednesday 20th February to do the Acknowledgement of Service.What's the 'date of issue' of the claim, top right?
01/02/2018
Did you do the AoS by that date? Please confirm.
Assuming you did do the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 6th March 2019 to file your Defence.
That's just over a week away. Loads of time to produce a good Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.
When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:-
Print your Defence.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
- Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
I hope you acknowledged it in time!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks @KeithP & @coupon-mad
Yes, I had submitted the AoS on 11th Feb 2019.0 -
Good, so after doing your research on the forum, use bargepole's concise defence example from the NEWBIES thread 2nd post as your base, and adapt that by adding the facts that you mentioned in post #5 about you not being the driver as you were travelling/away from that town, and about the location.
And add in a para about the POFA not being complied with.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
@coupon_mad,
After going through the bargepole's defence, I have few questions if you could please clarify
1. Points 5, 6, 7 speak about parking bay, signage and landowner kind of stuff. In my case am clueless about the Parking place for which this has been claimed, as they only mention the commercial area which has number of streets with parking, so its difficult to draw inference of what / where they are referring to.
So, I guess I cannot include theses points, but exclusion of these will make the response really short. Is that ok or should I still include these points ?
2. The defence does not talk about the "ParkingEye v Beavis" case and how this is different. So, is it that in the new format of defence this is not necessary ?
Please suggest. Thanks0 -
1. Never remove those vital points. They are the basic bullets against any PPC scam.
2. You don't have to mention case law in a defence, and can distinguish your case from Beavis later on in a skeleton argument, where case law comes into evidence.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards