Civil Enforement Ltd Claim Form Advice

Acorn2012

Sorry! Para 4 & 11

Coupon-mad

#11 makes no sense at all, as you have given it no context, you haven't even told the Judge what it is and where you are quoting it from.

You have also used a REALLY OLD defence example, talking about cut & paste particulars of claim, that CEL haven't done since 2017.

Acorn2012

Thank you for taking time to read it, I didn’t realise I had used such an old template!
I’ll have to sit down tonight and re-do. Appreciate your reply thank you

Acorn2012

Hello

Im back again! I have drafted a new defence and would really appreciate if some kind person could have a read through and let me know if this is now all ok? Thank you so much


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

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of terms of parking’ by the driver. 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 when parking at XXXX

2.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £60 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')' or £100 if not paid within 28 days from the PCN notice.

3. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

5. Futhermore the claimant has confirmed that they are not relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and pursuing me as the “Registered Keeper”, liability can not be transferred to the “Registered Keeper” and they can only pursue the “Driver”, as the driver has not been identified there should be no grounds to purse me as the “Registered Keeper”, and would suggest that this case is withdrawn with immediate effect.

6. 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.

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

8. 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 £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 by Judge Tailor and DJ Grand was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and stating that: ''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...''

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

Statement of Truth:

I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

A few changes suggested here, and is it true that your Claimant has admitted that they are not relying on the POFA? That's good if so!

5. Furthermore, the Claimant has confirmed that they are not relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) [STRIKE]and pursuing me as the “Registered Keeper”,[/STRIKE] in which case liability can not be transferred to the “Registered Keeper” and they can only pursue the “Driver”. As the driver has not been identified there should be no grounds to [STRIKE]purse me[/STRIKE] pursue the Defendant as the “Registered Keeper”. [STRIKE]and would suggest that this case is withdrawn with immediate effect.[/STRIKE]

6. 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. This location is a Co-op & Barnados charity shop car park which used to be a free to use car park with no limited stay, where local people shopped and/or dropped bags of donations off. It is contended that the driver would not have had a fair opportunity to become aware of the new restrictions, due to the lack of prominent additional 'transition' signs to comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Operational Requirements regarding signage, including the specific regulation at 18.10, which says:
''Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that
materially affects the motorist then you must make these
terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such
changes impose liability where none previously existed then
you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the
site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.
Best practice would be the installation of additional/
temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site
making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will
ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with
the previous terms become aware of the new ones.''

Acorn2012

Oh blimey no they haven’t confirmed that! I have copied and pasted a few different draft defences on here and adapted mine to suit but obviously missed this paragraph! Thank you for pointing that out I’ll have to amend the wording.

I really appreciate your help with this CouponMad I’ve been feeling very anxious about it but your input really helps so thank you so much

Redx

Once completed , carefully read it for any more errors because you are stating that it is a true statement for a judge, not just asking someone to carry your bags

That is the hazard of copying and pasting without proof reading, but you seem to be getting there

Acorn2012

Thinking I should change paragraph 5. this to instead:

5.The vehicle has multiple drivers and Civil Enforement Ltd has failed to comply with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, para 14 and thus failed to transfer liability to the Defendant in law. Given that the car is insured with more than one driver, the Claimant cannot assume nor tip the balance of probabilities, that the registered keeper was necessarily the driver. Thus, the Claimant has failed to establish a cause of action and liability against the Defendant



Your thoughts are much appreciated and welcome, thank you

Redx

Your reply above and the thread title have missed out the c in Enforcement, so check all your spellings of that word as it's a good idea to get the claimant,s name right

Coupon-mad

Looks fine though.