Civil Enforcement Ltd County Court Claim Form

Le_Kirk

That looks like an old defence. Have a look in the NEWBIE thread, post # 2 and compare it to one of the concisely written defences by Bargepole.

Nijinsky

Le_Kirk wrote: »

That looks like an old defence. Have a look in the NEWBIE thread, post # 2 and compare it to one of the concisely written defences by Bargepole.

To be honest, I have taken bits out of Bargepole's defences, but I also looked up several other CEL defences and took bits out of all of them which I think are relevant to my case as well, plus I added my own bits.

Do you think I should stick to Bargepole's template and not drastically change the layout? I've tried including everything I think is relevant, but I'm also worried because I've added quite a bit extra on top of Bargepole's points, my defence has ended up being too long winded.

I followed the Bargepole defence about unclear signs. I'm assuming this is the correct post?

Coupon-mad

Yes use bargepole's defence example and make sure you add the usual defence point about landowner authority (missing from one of bargepole's examples deliberately for the case in hand, but needed in most cases).

Add in a bit of detail like you did here:

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.

Have you admitted to being the driver in an appeal? If not, point out that the Claimants do not use POFA wording and you believe they failed to meet the timeline set in the POFA Schedule 4, etc.

Nijinsky

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes use bargepole's defence example and make sure you add the usual defence point about landowner authority (missing from one of bargepole's examples deliberately for the case in hand, but needed in most cases).

Add in a bit of detail like you did here:



Have you admitted to being the driver in an appeal? If not, point out that the Claimants do not use POFA wording and you believe they failed to meet the timeline set in the POFA Schedule 4, etc.

No, I have never admitted to being the driver. I stated this on paragraph 7 in the first draft of my defence, quoting PoFA Schedule 4.

Please see my revised defence below. I've largely used Bargepole's template. I added in the bit of detail you suggested and I notice Bargepole quoted the "contra proferentum" principle, so I've added that in as well:

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

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 Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

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. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and are in such positions 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.

6. 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, out of the line of sight for a driver 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. Given this lack of clarity, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the "contra proferentem" principle. Civil Enforcement Ltd are required to show evidence to the contrary.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.

9. 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).

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Looks like a decent defence.

Nijinsky

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looks like a decent defence.

Thanks, I'm pleased you think so and thankyou so much for your advice.

I just read through it again and I have to change point 8, as more than £60 has been added to the original Notice to Keeper sum of £100. I think I will just change the £60 to "additional costs".

Do you think there is anything extra I can take from my first draft to add in which could be useful, such as the Claimant being a serial abuser to the courts, continually failing to turn up to defended cases etc? Or do you think it's best for me to keep my defence as it is without adding any additional accusations to avoid the risk of turning my defence into a long winded rant?

Coupon-mad

Best to avoid the long winded rant. It's good as it is.

Nijinsky

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Best to avoid the long winded rant. It's good as it is.

Great, I will keep it as it is then. I will let you know how I get on. Thanks!

Nijinsky

Update, I have received the DQ forms and will now follow the advice on the DQ threads to fill this out. Is the advice in this thread the best to follow? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71763411#Comment_71763411

Coupon-mad

Yes, it was written by a respected CiLex qualified poster who no longer posts here.