CEL Claim Form - Defence

The_Ironist

Hi All,

Posting as having read newbies inc #2 and numerous CEL defences I'm not really sure what to use for mine. I'm usually spot on at this stuff but so much info is blowing my mind a little.

Story:
Parked in Co-Op car park for 13 minutes (8 before they opened sat in car, then visited the store on opening and left within 5 mins).

Used to live locally and it was FOC car park, changed to charging around 2014. I stayed locally for 3 months Dec-Feb 18 going most weekends to the car park and never noticed it was now chargeable until I received the PCN. Thankfully for only one visit.

With PCN eyes opened visiting the car park, there is plenty of signage that I managed to miss lol.

I received the PCN as a notice to keeper, later than the notifiable period. I did the generic appeal saying I don't have to advise who the driver was as you've missed the keeper window etc. No response from CEL to my appeal. Never changed status on the website for months.

PCN was Jan 18.
Had numerous threatening letters from them and debt collectors up until Sept 18, all of which ignored. Thought they had given up.
Meanwhile the car park has become FOC again so all signage etc removed to recall on if required.
CCJ Claim form in post a week or so ago.
Have done the AOS and SAR so onto my defence but this is where I'm getting stuck...

Any guidance on what I can call on much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

CCJ Claim form in post a week or so ago.

What is the issue date of the N1 claim?

You can adapt a defence about BPA grace periods by searching the forum for:

defence BPA grace periods true

And adapt it to include the point that CEL did not use POFA worded PCNs in Jan2018 and thus, the keeper can't be held liable in law.

The_Ironist

26th April, going on holiday so will try and defend by weds.

Debt + Damages claimed in the sum £236
+ £23.48 interest persuant to S.69 of the CCA 1984
Rates 8% pa from dates above (26/01/18) to 25/04/19.
Same rate to judgement.
Total Debt + Interest = £259.48
+ Court Fee £25
Legal Costs Rep £50
Total Amount £334.48

Signed Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative)

Thanks will have a look and try to draft.

KeithP

Your post seems to be telling us that the Issue Date on you Claim Form is 26th April. Is that correct?


With a Claim Issue Date of 26th April, you had until Wednesday 15th May to do the Acknowledgement of Service.

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 29th May 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a little over a week away. Loads of time to produce a Defence.


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 an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep 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.

The_Deep

£334 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

£250 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Coupon-mad

With a Claim Issue Date of 26th April, you had until Wednesday 15th May to do the Acknowledgement of Service.

Did you do the AoS by that date? Please confirm.

Wow, I hope you have done this in time, or DO IT NOW!

KeithP

Clearly The_Ironist has no sense of urgency.

The_Ironist

Um...actually as per my original post AOS and SAR were done on receipt of the claim form, well within the time limit. Aiming to send defense off by Weds as I'm off on holiday Thursday.

Will post a draft shortly. Thanks for the help.

KeithP

The_Ironist wrote: »

Um...actually as per my original post AOS and SAR were done on receipt of the claim form, well within the time limit. Aiming to send defense off by Weds as I'm off on holiday Thursday.

You also told us in your opening post:

CCJ Claim form in post a week or so ago

...but when asked you told us the Issue Date was 26 April.

That's significantly more than 'a week or so ago'... hence asking whether the AoS was done in time.

The_Ironist

I'd appreciate your thoughts on my draft:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

……..(Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Claim Form issued on ***** 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”. 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 Claimants Legal Representative. Practice Direct 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. CLAIM FORM SIGNED CEL (CLAIMANTS LEGAL REP)

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration BV15 ***, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date (…..) at Co-Op Evesham.

4. No notice to driver was affixed to the vehicle on the material date. A notice to keeper was issued on the ***** and delivered on the ***** which falls outside of the required period in which a notice to keeper must be delivered in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, paras. 6(1)(b) and 9(5).
4.1 It is noted that the Claimant did not use POFA worded PCNs in January 2018 and thus, the keeper can't be held liable in law.

5. The notice to keeper was not accompanied by any required evidence as prescribed in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, paras. 10.

6. 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.

7. In spite of the Defendant’s request, the Claimant has failed to supply any details of the signage that was in place at the time of the alleged contravention, which, according to the Claimant, details the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4 and Civil Practice Direction 16, Paragraph 7.3. Furthermore, the Letter of Claim sent on behalf of the Claimant did not include this information, which is a clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9 As a British Parking Association (BPA) member and approved operator, the Claimant must comply with the mandatory BPA Code of Practice (CoP), of which Version 6 was in force at the time of the alleged contravention. The Defendant notes the following points in relation to the BPA CoP Version 6, which was considered effectively ‘regulation’ by Judges at the Supreme Court.

9.1 The BPA CoP Section 13 requires the Claimant to allow two ‘grace periods’ – one reasonable period at the beginning of the parking period, and a minimum of 10 minutes at the end of the parking period.

9.2 The BPA CoP Section 18.2 requires the Claimant to have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the car park, which must follow some minimum general principles. The signage is positioned such that it cannot be read by drivers as they enter the car park. It is assumed that the entrance signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention would have been similar at best, and puts the Claimant to strict proof. As such, the Claimant is in breach of the BPA CoP, and it is denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

9.3 The BPA CoP Sections 18.3 and 18.4 require the Claimant to have signage stating the specific parking terms throughout the car park. The Defendant has it on good authority that the signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention was in breach of these requirements, and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the signage that was present.

9.4 The BPA CoP Section 21.1 requires the Claimant to have signs notifying drivers that ANPR camera technology is in use at the car park, and what the captured data will be used for. The Defendant has it on good authority that no such signs were in place at the time of the alleged contravention, and puts the Claimant to strict proof. As such, the Claimant is in breach of the BPA CoP.

10. 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, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £234.48, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has incurred legal representation costs specifically related to this claim, for which a £50 cost has been included in the claim.

12. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the notice to keeper is invalid as it does not meet the legal requirements, the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, have 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

''DEFENCE STATEMENT''

Should be

DEFENCE

I would change 4.1 to be number 5, then remove your #5 as there is no enacted para 10 rule in the POFA, nothing ever happened to give rise to para 10:

[STRIKE]4.1[/STRIKE] 5. It is noted that the Claimant did not use POFA worded PCNs in January 2018 and thus, the keeper can't be held liable in law.

[STRIKE]5. The notice to keeper was not accompanied by any required evidence as prescribed in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, paras. 10.[/STRIKE]

Where you quote from the BPA CoP, make sure you are quoting from the one that was current at the time of the parking event (I haven't checked, but you need to be sure, as the BPA CoP changes every year or so) and add in a point quoting about the rules for NEW RESTRICTIONS where a site was previously unrestricted.