Claim Form - CEL - County Court

Redx

now you know why the letters never arrived, but it doesnt change the fact that you are having to defend a court claim, but it helps you in your case because it shows that you did not ignore all the letters, so this can be added into your defence and WS , plus get those admissions in writing , because the lease company have failed to transfer liability to the lessee due to incorrect details , so they failed POFA

chances are they failed to supply the lease docs too , so anotehr POFA failure

but none of this POFA stuff matters if you are found to be the driver

a judge will decide all of this fiasco , so get all info back in writing, including those errors above

and as mentioned numerous times , draft your defence and post it below

Coupon-mad

MarcusRash wrote: »

Have just contacted lease company, they had my address down wrong!

Have requested how this had happened, turns out the letters they had sent me went to the wrong address also so never received them. Signed up online and it shows that they had the wrong town for me also.

Where do I stand?

Where do you think, nothing has changed (except that the lease firm failed to transfer liability to you properly...).

Get a screenshot of the wrong address online or ask the lease firm for an email confirming this was their error, which is the least they can do, since they caused you not to receive any PCN letters so you lost any opportunity to appeal and nearly ended up with a CCJ from a missing claim form!

A phone call does not cut it, you need this in writing from the lease firm.

You can then later use the email in evidence and say you were never served with any PCN, and in fact the lease firm failed to transfer liability to you as the hirer/lessee.

A technicality but could win, so worth mentioning in defence too.

Have you told the central COURT AND PARKING FIRM the correct address now, so that nothing is sent there again?

Anyway KeithP showed you where to find example defences so let's see yours!

MarcusRash

Thanks for all help thus far everyone,


Please find my first draft of proposed, welcome all feedback:


"In the County Court Business Centre, Northampton

CLAIM NO XXXX

BETWEEN

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED
V

XXXX

DEFENCE STATEMENT




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


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. The alleged breach, according to Civil Enforcement, is in contravention of terms and conditions; clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park. 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. At time of the alleged contravention, the one single small sign at the entrance could not be read fully and properly without stopping, and it is also possible to park in a bay without coming close to any other sign. Civil Enforcement 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 defendant has found the claimants not following legal procedure, they have failed to supply a notice to keeper and any chance at all to present any evidence of the alleged parking contravention.


7. The claimants have failed to contact the DVLA to obtain correct details for the defendant and have also obtained incorrect details from the registered keeper.


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. As an agent, 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.




10. As the claimant has not identified the driver they cannot assume the keeper/driver are on and the same at the time of the supposed contravention. Reference POFA 2012


11. The issue of this claim is based on a under payment or non-payment during parking, in this instance the claim should be voided and dismissed as no proof or communication has ever been received by the defendant.


The defendant acknowledges that the claimants have failed to produce a PCN, a notice to keeper any evidence that the defendant has parked on said date. Failure to obtain correct details from the registered keeper is a failure of POFA.


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


STATEMENT OF TRUTH


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


Defendant XXXX
Signed XXXX
Date XXXX

******************************** "

MarcusRash

Hi couponmad

Did you have a chance to look at my first draft defence? Thank you in advance

MarcusRash

Hi Redx

Did you have a chance to look at my first draft defence? Thank you in advance

Coupon-mad

I can see it's headed DEFENCE STATEMENT which we don't do.

You need to make it clear to the court and Claimant that your address was WRONG on the claim form and to state the right address, and also in the covering email that you send to the CCBC with the defence, repeat the correct address and require them to 'rectify their data'.

Never repeat what the Claimant's case is, this reads like you were saying the signs were clear! Remove it:

The alleged breach, according to Civil Enforcement, is in contravention of terms and conditions; clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park.

I don't understand #6 and #7.

You should be spelling it out that this is a lease car and the lease firm have admitted fault in giving the wrong address for the Defendant, and thus liability has never passed from the lease firm to the Hirer/lessee as set out in the POFA Schedule 4. Liability can only be transferred if the registered keeper (lease firm) had properly notified the parking firm of the name and address for service of the hirer/lessee. They failed, therefore if there is any liability to pursue it still rests with the lease firm, and it is indisputable that the Defendant was never served with a compliant Notice to Hirer.

MarcusRash

Please find my amended defence statement ready for your critique and viewing :

"In the County Court Business Centre, Northampton

CLAIM NO XXXX

BETWEEN

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED
V

XXXX



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


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. 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. At time of the alleged contravention, the one single small sign at the entrance could not be read fully and properly without stopping, and it is also possible to park in a bay without coming close to any other sign. Civil Enforcement 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 defendants vehicle is a lease vehicle and the leasing company in question have admitted to the defendant in writing that they had an incorrect address for the defendant. Thus liability has never been passed from the lease form to the hirer/lesse as set out in POFA schedule 4. Liability can only be transferred if the registered keeper (lease company) had properly notified the parking firm of the name and address for service of the hirer/lessee. They failed, therefore if there is any liability to pursue it still rests with the lease company and it is indisputable that the defendant was never served with a compliant notice to hirer.

7. The address was incorrect that the claimant has been pursuing and any correspondence via letter has not been received by the defendant. The address the claimant have on file is ** **** ***** ******* this is the address of a neighbouring town and not the legal address of the defendant. The correct address for the defendant is ** ***** **** *******and lies in a separate village. The address was wrong on the claim form issued by the claimant, therefore not received by the defendant at their legal address.

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. As an agent, 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.


10. As the claimant has not identified the driver they cannot assume the keeper/driver are on and the same at the time of the supposed contravention. Reference POFA 2012


11. The issue of this claim is based on a under payment or non-payment during parking, in this instance the claim should be voided and dismissed as no proof or communication has ever been received by the defendant.


The defendant acknowledges that the claimants have failed to produce a PCN, a notice to keeper any evidence that the defendant has parked on said date. Failure to obtain correct details from the registered keeper is a failure of POFA.


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


STATEMENT OF TRUTH


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


Defendant XXXX
Signed XXXX
Date XXXX

******************************** "

Redx

it should say the word DEFENCE just above 1. so edit it in above

all you needed to do in that part was delete the word STATEMENT , nothing more was needed as the actual header DEFENCE is what was required

MarcusRash

Please find my amended defence statement ready for your critique and viewing :

"In the County Court Business Centre, Northampton

CLAIM NO XXXX

BETWEEN

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED
V

XXXX

DEFENCE

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


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. 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. At time of the alleged contravention, the one single small sign at the entrance could not be read fully and properly without stopping, and it is also possible to park in a bay without coming close to any other sign. Civil Enforcement 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 defendants vehicle is a lease vehicle and the leasing company in question have admitted to the defendant in writing that they had an incorrect address for the defendant. Thus liability has never been passed from the lease form to the hirer/lesse as set out in POFA schedule 4. Liability can only be transferred if the registered keeper (lease company) had properly notified the parking firm of the name and address for service of the hirer/lessee. They failed, therefore if there is any liability to pursue it still rests with the lease company and it is indisputable that the defendant was never served with a compliant notice to hirer.

7. The address was incorrect that the claimant has been pursuing and any correspondence via letter has not been received by the defendant. The address the claimant have on file is ** **** ***** ******* this is the address of a neighbouring town and not the legal address of the defendant. The correct address for the defendant is ** ***** **** *******and lies in a separate village. The address was wrong on the claim form issued by the claimant, therefore not received by the defendant at their legal address.

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. As an agent, 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.


10. As the claimant has not identified the driver they cannot assume the keeper/driver are on and the same at the time of the supposed contravention. Reference POFA 2012


11. The issue of this claim is based on a under payment or non-payment during parking, in this instance the claim should be voided and dismissed as no proof or communication has ever been received by the defendant.


The defendant acknowledges that the claimants have failed to produce a PCN, a notice to keeper any evidence that the defendant has parked on said date. Failure to obtain correct details from the registered keeper is a failure of POFA.


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


STATEMENT OF TRUTH


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


Defendant XXXX
Signed XXXX
Date XXXX

********************************

Coupon-mad

In 8b you have ''I clarify''. You need to remove any ''I'' and change to the Defendant.
Two typos below, sorry one of them was mine in my earlier reply!

Thus liability has never been passed from the lease form to the hirer/lesse