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!
Civil Enforcement Ltd County Court Form
PJ2010
Posts: 7 Forumite
Hi I wonder if you could help at all.
I have had a County Court Claim Form from Civil Enforcement Limited. I had initially ignored all correspondence after reading they would probably not keep pursuing only to receive a County Court Claim Form. I have followed everyone's advice and am now at the point that I have to submit my defence. I have acknowledged service on the Courts website and am now in the process of completing a defence to file using templates I have come accross on this site.
The driver did go over the free parking by 40 mins we were are a family community event which was a Halloween trail around the local retailers and businesses ending up at the local church which provided free activities for the children. It was a complete oversight that we went over the time limit.
There is a sign on entering the car park and signs dotted about.
Any help would be very much appreciated.
In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXX (Defendant)
____________
DEFENCE
____________
1. The Claim Form issued on 1st November 2018 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. The terms of the main sign at the entrance of the car park are difficult to read by a passing vehicle and the font is too small. The other signs scattered throughout the car park state Free Parking in large font for 2.5 hours whilst the terms and conditions are in a small font.
5. The alleged breach, according to Civil Enforcement Ltd, is in contravention of terms and conditions. One sign is clearly visible, positioned directly in front of the car park entrance however this is difficult to read by a passing vehicle due to the font size. The words "Free Parking" are displayed on other signs, but the terms and conditions are in a small font underneath and therefore misleading. Given this lack of clarity, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the "contra proferentem" principle. Civil Enforcement Ltd are required to show evidence to the contrary.
6. 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.
7. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred damages and costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt to the sum of £167.49. 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 Parking Charge Notice, in this case £100
8. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence of the vehicle entering the car park as the picture provided on the Parking Charge Notice only shows part of the registration of a vehicle.
9. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence to support the claim on the Parking Charge Notice of the duration of time the vehicle was parked.
9. The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 (PoFA 2012). The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle on the material date, but there is no evidence of who was driving. As the Claimant has not identified the driver, it cannot be assumed the keeper/driver are one and the same at the time of the supposed contravention (POFA 2012).
10. On the date of the alleged incident a family community event was taking place in the town with a large number of local retailers and businesses taking part. The event was designed to bring shoppers to the town and would have raised additional revenue for businesses and retailers. The event also included the local church which had free activities for children that day. It is very unfortunate that on the very day when shoppers and their families are being encouraged into the town that “Civil Enforcement Limited” decided to issue this Parking Charge Notice.
11. 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.
Name
Signature
Date
I have had a County Court Claim Form from Civil Enforcement Limited. I had initially ignored all correspondence after reading they would probably not keep pursuing only to receive a County Court Claim Form. I have followed everyone's advice and am now at the point that I have to submit my defence. I have acknowledged service on the Courts website and am now in the process of completing a defence to file using templates I have come accross on this site.
The driver did go over the free parking by 40 mins we were are a family community event which was a Halloween trail around the local retailers and businesses ending up at the local church which provided free activities for the children. It was a complete oversight that we went over the time limit.
There is a sign on entering the car park and signs dotted about.
Any help would be very much appreciated.
In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXX (Defendant)
____________
DEFENCE
____________
1. The Claim Form issued on 1st November 2018 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. The terms of the main sign at the entrance of the car park are difficult to read by a passing vehicle and the font is too small. The other signs scattered throughout the car park state Free Parking in large font for 2.5 hours whilst the terms and conditions are in a small font.
5. The alleged breach, according to Civil Enforcement Ltd, is in contravention of terms and conditions. One sign is clearly visible, positioned directly in front of the car park entrance however this is difficult to read by a passing vehicle due to the font size. The words "Free Parking" are displayed on other signs, but the terms and conditions are in a small font underneath and therefore misleading. Given this lack of clarity, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the "contra proferentem" principle. Civil Enforcement Ltd are required to show evidence to the contrary.
6. 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.
7. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred damages and costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt to the sum of £167.49. 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 Parking Charge Notice, in this case £100
8. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence of the vehicle entering the car park as the picture provided on the Parking Charge Notice only shows part of the registration of a vehicle.
9. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence to support the claim on the Parking Charge Notice of the duration of time the vehicle was parked.
9. The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 (PoFA 2012). The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle on the material date, but there is no evidence of who was driving. As the Claimant has not identified the driver, it cannot be assumed the keeper/driver are one and the same at the time of the supposed contravention (POFA 2012).
10. On the date of the alleged incident a family community event was taking place in the town with a large number of local retailers and businesses taking part. The event was designed to bring shoppers to the town and would have raised additional revenue for businesses and retailers. The event also included the local church which had free activities for children that day. It is very unfortunate that on the very day when shoppers and their families are being encouraged into the town that “Civil Enforcement Limited” decided to issue this Parking Charge Notice.
11. 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.
Name
Signature
Date
0
Comments
-
Hi and welcome.
The first line of your Defence starts:
Is that right?1. The Claim Form issued on 1st November 2018...
What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?0 -
You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving
The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you in court0 -
Sorry meant the initial Parking Charge Notice!0
-
I dont drive so it wasnt me and I cant see where i have said who was driving0
-
Read your OP again then!0
-
Yes from Northampton0
-
Thank you will edit and repost0
-
Sorry it was 18th July0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards