Sister had a dentist appointment and now Received Claim Form from Civil Enforcement Limited

KeithP

teflondon wrote: »

Sorry for the confusion. Yes 20th August is the issue date on the claim form from CCBC

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th August, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 23rd September 2019 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

teflondon

This my draft which I have so far:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: FXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant)

-and-

wjfnwenfwkjnf (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

Background - the driver was an authorised patron of the onsite business

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN) for the lawful conduct described below.

2. The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle was not authorised to use the car park' based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of 'No Authorisation' or not being a patron of the facility.

3. The Defendant has already proved that patronage, and it is the Claimant's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a PCN that was not properly issued from the outset.

Lack of good faith, fairness or transparency and misleading business practices

4. If a parking firm was truly acting in good faith and keeping the interests of consumers at the heart of their thinking, they would concentrate on ensuring firstly, that patrons were sufficiently infomed by receptionists to submit their car registration details and secondly, could not miss the fact that, if they did receive an unfair PCN as a genuine customer, they had a right to ask the landowner/Managers to cancel it. Clearly the Claimants interest is purely in misleading and punishing customers and extracting as much money as possible in three figure penalties, given that this is the only way Civil Enforcement Limited make any money.

5. The Claimant's negligent or deliberately unfair business practice initially caused the unfair PCN to arise, then the Claimant's silence regarding the simple option of landowner cancellation rights, directly caused these unwarranted proceedings. This Claimant cannot be heard to blame consumers for not trying a futile 'appeal' to them, whilst themselves hoping the Defendant does not discover that Civil Enforcement Limited withheld the option of landowner cancellation all along.

5.1. By failing to adequately alert patrons to submitting their registration number, and then withholding from the registered keeper any/all information about the 'user agreement' with the landowner which would have enable an immediate route of cancellation, are 'misleading omissions' of material facts. These are specific breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and transgress the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (this relatively untested legislation was enacted after the final hearing in Beavis and not actively considered in that case). As such, this claim must fail.
Inflation of the parking charge and double recovery - an abuse of process

12. This claim inflates the total charges in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. Thus, there can be no 'costs' to pile on top of any parking charge claim.

13. In addition to the original penalty, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported legal costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. Civil Enforcement Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case, given that they have a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and (shamefully) this firm whose main business is supposed to be parking 'management' as a service provision, files tens of thousands of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per annum. No genuine legal costs arise, per case, and their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

14. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent by legally qualified staff on actually preparing the claim and/or the cost of obtaining advice for that specific claim, in a legal capacity.

15. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

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


Name/signature


Date

Umkomaas

You've jumped from para 5.1 to para 12. Stop rushing this, expecting others to tidy up for you.

NeilCr

Could you, please, help us by answering the questions in #9 and #11.

It's the first time you have mentioned ANPR. Did you see the cameras?

Thanks

teflondon

NeilCr wrote: »

Can we, also, just check that the car park "belongs" to the dentists.

It's not a communal use one is it? I'd be surprised but I have seen cases where doctors have access to a public car park.

I'm pretty sure its part of the dental practice. Because there is no other facility there except the dental practice.

teflondon

Umkomaas wrote: »

Go back and try again. Ask them are they happy for one of their patients to be sued for almost £300 because their receptionist failed to ask for the car registration number?

As this will be a vital issue around which the case is likely to revolve in the court, you will need to have the court call on a member of staff of the practice for questioning. Ask for the name of the representative, and a list of dates for which they would be unavailable, so the court can fix the trial to avoid those.

A bit of bluff in some of that, but one thing's for sure, you are going to have to face court (and all the work that will bring you) unless you can get the practice to direct CEL to cancel.

Take the court claim form with you to show them (you could also take a copy with you to leave with them) as proof of how the practice is exposing its patients to litigation and not providing any assistance to them.

Also take this with you, ask if they are aware of the NHS guidelines, and if they are, why are they not complying?

Are you also a patient of the practice?

Just to ensure we're on the right track with the claim - are you the registered keeper of the vehicle and is it your name on the claim form?

I have sent them an email now asking them to put it in writing that they don't want me pursued further by the PCN as someone mentioned early. Based on their response I will reply to them with the NHS guidelines and what you have mentioned in this post. Thank you for that.

I am not a patient of the practice, but my sister is and I was attending the appointment with her. The time I was in the car park according to the letter was 10:52am until 11:11am.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and it is my name on the claim form.

teflondon

NeilCr wrote: »

Could you, please, help us by answering the questions in #9 and #11.

It's the first time you have mentioned ANPR. Did you see the cameras?

Thanks

They did use ANPR. I didn't see the cameras but they sent photos of my vehicle in their initial letter to me.

Umkomaas

teflondon wrote: »

They did use ANPR. I didn't see the cameras but they sent photos of my vehicle in their initial letter to me.

That's how they do it - ANPR camera grab of the VRM from your vehicle, then a computer match with the VRM inputted (or not!) by the receptionist into their keypad.