We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
CEL claim - help with Defense please
SK04
Posts: 5 Forumite
The registered keeper was issued a claim on 17/07/19 and completed acknowledgment of service on 18/07/19.!
Having read sticky notes and other similar cases a defence has been drafted. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks!!
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:!
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED at XXXX, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
3. The charge was incurred in a seaside town car park out of season. During the Defendant’s stay there were no other cars observed to be parked in the named car park; many surrounding businesses were closed at the time. Therefore, it is the defendant’s position that there would have been no commercial loss to these businesses, nor the landowner or the car park, as a result and therefore no justification for such a high fee.
4. In this case the PCN was issued to the defendant following an overstay of 12 minutes, the driver entered the car park at14:24:45 and exited at 16:36:10. This indicates that the claimant is operating within parameters which lack a grace period. Please refer to the BPA Approved Operator Code of Practice 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.
5. 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.!
6. The PCN states “Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage.” 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. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.!
8. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
9. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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. The Defendant asks the Claimant to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement maintaining that a contract has been seen is not adequate). The contract should 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.!
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 £92.85, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.!
11. A further £50 is claimed for solicitor fees, the It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representative's costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. The claim was intentionally moved around various debt and collection companies in order to inflate the charge before court action was taken. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14), but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £192.85. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.
12. 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.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.!
Many thanks
Having read sticky notes and other similar cases a defence has been drafted. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks!!
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:!
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED at XXXX, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
3. The charge was incurred in a seaside town car park out of season. During the Defendant’s stay there were no other cars observed to be parked in the named car park; many surrounding businesses were closed at the time. Therefore, it is the defendant’s position that there would have been no commercial loss to these businesses, nor the landowner or the car park, as a result and therefore no justification for such a high fee.
4. In this case the PCN was issued to the defendant following an overstay of 12 minutes, the driver entered the car park at14:24:45 and exited at 16:36:10. This indicates that the claimant is operating within parameters which lack a grace period. Please refer to the BPA Approved Operator Code of Practice 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.
5. 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.!
6. The PCN states “Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage.” 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. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.!
8. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
9. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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. The Defendant asks the Claimant to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement maintaining that a contract has been seen is not adequate). The contract should 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.!
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 £92.85, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.!
11. A further £50 is claimed for solicitor fees, the It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representative's costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. The claim was intentionally moved around various debt and collection companies in order to inflate the charge before court action was taken. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14), but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £192.85. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.
12. 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.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.!
Many thanks
0
Comments
-
Add the abuse of process paragraphs by coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy too0
-
Is this Defence any different to that posted on your already existing thread?
Why have you started a second thread?0 -
Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining 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.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards