CEL Court letter - AOS submitted 4 days ago

jec1990

Hi guys, any comments on my defence would be much appreciated. thank again for all of your help.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO:

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

In the matter of court claim, XXXXXXX, I am XXXX, the defendant in this matter and the previous registered keeper of vehicle XXX. I can be served at the address on the claim form. I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

1. The Claim Form issued on XXX 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. 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 their own name and not that of their firm or employer.

2. Frustration of contract.
The alleged breach, according to Civil Enforcement Ltd, is in contravention of terms and conditions. The signs in this car park at the alleged breach of contract date, are redundant, due to the signs stating different terms. Civil Enforcement Ltd are required to show evidence to the contrary.
2.1. Unclear terms - unconscionable penalty relying upon a hidden keypad. According to the sparse signs in this car park, it now transpires that to avoid a Parking Charge and despite there being no Pay & Display machines or similar, visitors were expected to know to input their Vehicle Registration Number (VRN). This is far from clearly signed and the purported keypad was nowhere to be seen.
2.2. Prior to the Defendant's visit, Civil Enforcement ltd. had recently placed their signage within the car park creating new terms and conditions for motorists. Their Trade Body Code of Practice states at 18.11: ''Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.''
It is contended that the Claimant failed to alert regular local visitors to an onerous change and unexpected obligation to use an iPad, or risk £100 penalty.
2.3. The manager apologised for the incorrect issuance of the PCN and explained that since adopting the parking measures with Civil Enforcement ltd that they have received a number of complaints from patrons who have received similar PCN’s from Civil Enforcement ltd.
3. The Defendant was an authorised patron of the onsite business.
4. Grace periods

Please refer to the BPA Approved Operator Code of Practice section 13.4. You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

4.1 In this case the driver had an entry time of 12.57 and exit time of 14.08 meaning just 11 minutes over the alleged 1 hour free parking.
5. 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.

6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £279.30 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, as per the Defendants terms.

7. The Claimant is a serial abuser of the courts, filing hundreds of claims on a weekly basis. However, it is widely reported that the Claimant fails to turn up to defended cases, wasting the court’s and the defendant’s time. The Claimant is a serial litigant whose business model is to file large numbers of spurious claims and pressure defendants into paying up by sending letters increasing costs. In a preliminary hearing for a number of cases in Bristol, HHJ Denyer expressed his concern at the way CEL were conducting their cases and described the letters as a disgrace.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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