Civil Enforcement county court letter

CH5698

Here is the revised defence document. I've taken out the I, my, me. question mark etc - think i have managed to delete everything now. I've deleted paragraph 1 abuse of process details and added the full wording from coupon-mad on this subject from the beamerguy thread. I've read through this, would you suggest i need to personalize in any way or keep the wording exactly as it is? Thank you.

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXX (Defendant)


1. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “breach of T&C parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract'.

2. The claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. The defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

3. The PCN was issued on a new, poorly signed parking meter. The defendant used the said car park numerous times in the past which previously had a pay and display meter. Having tried to insert the £1 coin for 1hour parking, the coin slot was covered and the defendant was unable to add any money to the machine. Eventually, two gentlemen also using the car park looked into the situation with the defendant and it was determined the defendant needed to add the car registration number which the defendant duly did. This opened the coin slot and the defendant inserted the £1 coin. The defendant was expecting to receive a paper ticket but was advised that this is not necessarily the case. The gentlemen proceeded in the same manner and all assumed this was correct.

4. The claimant sent photos showing the defendant’s car parked in said carpark using ANPR cameras and would therefore have seen the defendant at the meter conversing with the gentlemen and adding payment to the machine. The defendant has not been provided with photos showing this. The defendant’s car was parked from 14:01 to 14:57 within the time limits for the payment as also confirmed by the claimant.

5. The defendant has requested the machine records from that day of payments made from the claimant but received a copy for transactions on the 11th November 2017, not the 1st November 2017. Despite the defendant’s requests for the correctly dated copy, nothing has been forthcoming.

6. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

7. It is submitted that the claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. The defendant spoke to the owner directly several times about the charge. The owner subsequently tried to stop the process, but the claimant refused to do so as the process ‘was too far down the line’. Proof is required from the landowner to this claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

8. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the defendant is keeping a note of her wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

9. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- 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.

- Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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 was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''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...''

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

Name……………..
Date………………

KeithP

Every single one of those added paragraphs needs a sequential number.

CH5698

Thanks Keith and I've just added those in.

Coupon-mad

KeithP wrote: »

Every single one of those added paragraphs needs a sequential number.

I feel like screaming every time people don't. I didn't add the hyphens for fun but CLEARLY I couldn't number them as people would then just copy wrong numbers!

CH5698

I think i made your evening Coupon-mad , my apologies i should have realised . Here's the final copy, if all okay i guess i'm ready to submit it. Thanks very much

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXX (Defendant)


1. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “breach of T&C parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract'.

2. The claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. The defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

3. The PCN was issued on a new, poorly signed parking meter. The defendant used the said car park numerous times in the past which previously had a pay and display meter. Having tried to insert the £1 coin for 1hour parking, the coin slot was covered and the defendant was unable to add any money to the machine. Eventually, two gentlemen also using the car park looked into the situation with the defendant and it was determined the defendant needed to add the car registration number which the defendant duly did. This opened the coin slot and the defendant inserted the £1 coin. The defendant was expecting to receive a paper ticket but was advised that this is not necessarily the case. The gentlemen proceeded in the same manner and all assumed this was correct.

4. The claimant sent photos showing the defendant’s car parked in said carpark using ANPR cameras and would therefore have seen the defendant at the meter conversing with the gentlemen and adding payment to the machine. The defendant has not been provided with photos showing this. The defendant’s car was parked from 14:01 to 14:57 within the time limits for the payment as also confirmed by the claimant.

5. The defendant has requested the machine records from that day of payments made from the claimant but received a copy for transactions on the 11th November 2017, not the 1st November 2017. Despite the defendant’s requests for the correctly dated copy, nothing has been forthcoming.

6. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

7. It is submitted that the claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. The defendant spoke to the owner directly several times about the charge. The owner subsequently tried to stop the process, but the claimant refused to do so as the process ‘was too far down the line’. Proof is required from the landowner to this claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

8. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the defendant is keeping a note of her wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

9. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

9a. 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.

9b. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

9c. 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.

9d. 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.

9e. 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.

9f. 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.

9g. 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 was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''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...''

9h. 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.

9i. 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.

9j. 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.

The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

Name……………..
Date………………

Le_Kirk

Change this: -

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

to this: -

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and here the defendant cites the previous cases:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

My bold, so don't embolden it in your defence. This is added so that the judge knows that you are quoting from a previous case NOT issuing an instruction or order to the court.

CH5698

yep, understand and i've just amended that paragraph:

9g. 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 was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and here the defendant cites the previous cases:
''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...''

Redx

The paragraphs should all have their own number , doubling the number to about 18

Otherwise it seems good to go once all the changes have been made

CH5698

Thanks Redx, i wasn't sure about that initially when i was numbering up. Will do that and can i just ask, do i send this out now or wait until Civil Enforcement send all the info from the GDPR Sar letter?

Le_Kirk

Send your defence to meet the deadlines you were given when you completed AOS and also reread post # 10 from KeithP in this thread. Results for SARs are better for Witness Statement anyway. Don't miss the deadline!