Civil enforcement claim form

Redx

As well as video and pictures, do you have bank statements etc showing the bill on that day ? If so , print it out as further proof of patronage, plus any other ones of a similar nature for other visits

You followed the rules and were familiar with the rules and have done so numerous times, so that's what you tell the judge

Scooby82

Thanks Keithp that’s very helpful and will will definitely follow that advice
Typical we paid cash that visit redx but the video with the staff member bringing the cake out and singing will hopefully sway the judge 🤞
Reading all the forums I can’t believe what a scandalous system these firms run and are left to get away with, thank god for all the people like yourselves giving up your time to help people like me, thanks again 👍 :beer:

Coupon-mad

We went to a frankie and bennies for my sons birthday(have pictures and videos to prove it)
When we walked in the staff asked if we were driving and as we were told us to enter our reg on the big pad on the desk which we did, but it obviously didn’t register because I got a fine through the post, we contacted the manager who said he would contact them to try and cancel it but obviously failed,

So you can clearly adapt the wording of the example defence you will have seen in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread about a hidden ipad (ParkingEye/Odeon one).

That one is suitable and can be easily adapted to explain that the ipad/keypad failed.

Please don't ask for a link though (no chance, not from me!). I encourage newbies to use the forum as intended and find things they need as it helps later if you know how to hop around and refer back to the NEWBIES thread before posting about each piece of paper the court & Claimant send you.

Scooby82

Thanks coupon-mad I will definitely look into that example thanks very much for highlighting it

Scooby82

Done the aos many thanks for the heads up keithp was a doddle with the drop down link was hoping it would all be as easy but when trying to send my sar the email address on the website is invalid surprisingly 🤣 a phone call to make tomorrow
Downloaded the hidden iPad link thanks s coupon-mad will try and adjust to suit my case

Many thanks again for all your help

Scooby82

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

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Claim Form issued on 30th May 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.

5. The defendant entered the registration number as requested by the dining establishment as he has done on occasions before and after the incident but the pad failed to register it.

6. The defendant has video evidence to show he was in the establishment eating at the time of the incident.

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. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

8.1 CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

8.2 Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

8.3 The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

8.4 Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

8.5 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

8.6 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

8.7 Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

8.8 In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

8.9 There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

8.10 The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Scooby82

Can anyone give this a quick once over please

Coupon-mad

Looks good, and covers all bases.

I would just make it clear here that no contravention occurred:

5. The defendant entered the registration number as requested by the dining establishment as he has done on occasions before and after the incident but the keypad system provided by this Claimant, failed to register it. There was no contravention of any term on the Claimant's signage because the Defendant made reasonable endeavours and did enter their VRN as a patron, to claim exemption. If the Claimant's electronic system failed, this is no concern of the motorist and cannot give rise to any cause of action in law.

Scooby82

Thanks very much coupon-mad that is very helpful, will update mine and another part down thanks to the amazing people on this site :T

Scooby82

Just an update, did my dq as laid out on here many thanks looked on mcol and my case been transferred to my local court so awaiting next paperwork to arrive