Civil Enforcement Ltd County Court Claim Form

Nijinsky

After ignoring several letters from Civil Enforcement Ltd, QDR solicitors and ZZPS debt collectors thinking they would give up and go away, I have today received a claim form from Civil Enforcement Ltd with the court address of County Court Business Centre, St Katherine's Street, Northampton. The claim is demanding a payment of £193.41, plus an additional £25 court fee and £50 legal representative's costs, taking the overall total to £268.41.

The claim is relating to a parking charge where I overstayed the 90 minute maximum limit. It's a retail car park with a KFC, Dominos, Halfords etc, I've never parked in this car park before, there was no pay and display machine, it was a free car park. I didn't see any signs, but it was dark and I have since looked on Google Street Maps which does show the 90 minute limit signs displayed. I must have missed the signs because it was dark and as I saw no pay and display machine, I incorrectly assumed I could park there for the whole evening.

I was sent photographic evidence of the times my car entered and left the car park. I have researched Civil Enforcement Ltd's reputation and have researched QDR solicitors and ZZPS debt collectors. The advice I read was to ignore all correspondence, so I haven't replied once and I haven't yet revealed I was the driver. I have researched the legitimacy of this County Court in Northampton and this claim seems 100% fake and yet another fraudulent attempt to claim money.

Is it safe for me to ignore this claim form? Or should I respond on this occasion?

KeithP

Hi and welcome.

Your research is flawed. That form is almost certainly genuine.

No it is not safe to ignore that Claim Form.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Nijinsky

KeithP wrote: »

Hi and welcome.

Your research is flawed. That form is almost certainly genuine.

No it is not safe to ignore that Claim Form.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Thanks for your quick reply and your welcome.

The issue date is 20th March 2019, so it was sent out yesterday and arrived to me today.

KeithP

Nijinsky wrote: »

The issue date is 20th March 2019.

You'll find out for sure whether it is genuine or not when you do the Acknowledgement of Service.


With a Claim Issue Date of 20th March, you have until Monday 8th April to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 23rd April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect 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.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. 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'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. 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.

Coupon-mad

You need to read the NEWBIES thread 2nd post - come back when you have.



No link provided or needed. See my signature; all my posts end with these words:

Nijinsky

I have completed my AOS. I guess I now wait until I receive an email notifying me of a response?

KeithP

Nijinsky wrote: »

I have completed my AOS. I guess I now wait until I receive an email notifying me of a response?

No. You will not get a response.

Crack on with your Defence. Do not miss your filing deadline. You will get no reminder.

Coupon-mad

The NEWBIES thread does tell you this already. Crack on!

Nijinsky

Thanks both.

I've just browsed the newbies thread and I notice there's a popular standard template which seems to have proved successful when fighting these claims, so I will use that template and edit parts to suit my claim.

I will spend the next day or two on this and then try to post my defence in this thread over the weekend for feedback if that's alright.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

Redx

as long as it originated from post #2 and not post #1 , then yes , draft it , adapt it and post it below

KeithP told you the correct details for deadlines and submission dates etc

ps:- that form did NOT come from the county court in Northampton, google that address and its a different address

the form came from the government office in Northampton, namely the CCBC
the government have civil service offices all round the UK, like the DVLA in Swansea and the Pension Centre up near Gateshead for example

the court will actually be at your local civil county court , google it , because you will be telling the CCBC which one later on at the DQ stage

Nijinsky

I have put together my defence. Let me know what you think. Hopefully, this is close to being sufficient, but obviously; I will be happy to follow your advice and make further adjustments/changes if necessary:

In the matter of court claim, xxxxxxx, I am xxxxxx xxxxxx, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle xxxx xxx. I can be served at the address on the claim form. I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

1. The Claim Form issued on 20th March 2019 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by 'Civil Enforcement Limited' as the Claimant's Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

2. The Claimant is a serial litigant whose business model is to file large numbers of spurious claims and pressure defendants into paying up by sending letters increasing costs. In a preliminary hearing for a number of cases in Bristol, HHJ Denyer expressed his concern at the way CEL were conducting their cases and described the letters as a disgrace.

3. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. The claim amount far exceeeds the total permitted for recovery for a parking charge amount under the Claimant's ATA Code of Practice. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representative's costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. The claim was intentionally moved around various debt and collection companies in order to inflate the charge before court action was taken. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14), but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £xxx. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.

4. The alleged breach, according to Civil Enforcement Ltd, is in contravention of terms and conditions. The signs in this car park are not at all prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. Only one small sign is clearly visible, positioned directly in front of the car park entrance. The words "Free Parking" are displayed on this sign, but this sign is misleading as although it states terms apply, it doesn't state what those terms are. There is no indication there is a maximum 90 minute parking limit on this sign. Other signs in this car park are sporadically placed and not clearly visible, especially in the evening when it's dark with no sufficient lighting. It is therefore possible to park and not be able to see any clear signage which complies with BPA requirements. Civil Enforcement Ltd are required to show evidence to the contrary.

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. The Claim is for breach of contract; however, the Defendant denies any contract existed. The wording is mostly illegible as the signs are so small in size and displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle; that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The Claimant failed to establish a contract with the driver due to inadequate signage around the car park incapable of binding the driver. This distinguishes this case from the Beavis case, Specifically:
a) Poorly worded signs which do not make it clear that charges apply for overstay.
b) Poorly located signage around the car park which are out of the line of sight for a driver.
c) No mention of any debt collection additional charge, which therefore cannot form part of any alleged contract.

7. The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 (PoFA 2012). The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle on the material date, but there is no evidence of who was driving. As the Claimant has not identified the driver, it cannot be assumed the keeper/driver are one and the same at the time of the supposed contravention (POFA 2012).

8. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
a) It is believed the Claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. The Defendant has no evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. The Defendant believes the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name. Any such claim should be in the name of the landowner.
b) The Defendant asks the Claimant to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that the Claimant is entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.

9. 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) The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

10. The Claimant is a serial abuser of the courts, filing over 3,000 claims in 2014. However, it is widely reported that the Claimant fails to turn up to defended cases, wasting the court’s and the defendant’s time.

11. I therefore ask that the claim be struck out as having no prospect of success, and bring to the courts attention a similar order made in the case of Premier Park Limited v Lisa Grafton, A3QK0712, struck out on 19 March 2015. As the Claimant is not likely to attend court even if the claim progresses, this will save costs all round.

In light of the reasons above, the Defendant respectfully asks the court to strike out this claim with immediate effect.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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