CEL County Court Claim Defence

ActiveSec

Hi there

One of our employees in a company vehicle decided to take a break in an NHS surgery car park and did not see the Civil Enforcement Ltd parking signs. We then received a PCN from CEL and various subsequent letters from them and Debt Recovery and Zenith Collection. I have ignored them all and today I have received County Court Claims Form.

I will complete the AoS asap. Please could someone confirm if my defence statement would be adequate. Thank you in advance;

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXXX
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v XXXXXXX
Defence Statement

We deny we are liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 23rd September 2019 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
(c) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.

It has still not been made clear to the Defendant why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; and cannot be considered a fair exchange of information.

3. The claimant has not issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold us liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.

4. There can be no 'presumption' by the claimant that the keeper was the driver. Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained; there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and ‘relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. Neither the signs, nor the Notice to Keeper, mentioned a possible £256.03 for outstanding debt and damages.

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

6. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

7. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

8. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

9. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
The Claimant has no legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

10. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

11. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirms that the penalty rule is still engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

12. The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If the ‘Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)’ is an employee then the Defendant suggests he/she is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated 23rd September 2019 are templates, so it is not credible that £50 ‘legal costs’ were incurred. We deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

We believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

XXXXXXX Ltd

Fruitcake

You should add at some point, (not sure if it should be at this stage,) that the driver was not on company business nor acting on the company's behalf at the time of the alleged event.

Have the scamlicitors added on a fake charge in the order of £60? If so, you should read beamerguy's "abuse of process" thread and then ask the court to strike out your case as the other judges have done, quoting all the cases from the "abuse" thread.

The_Deep

Have you read this?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

Have they complied?


Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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

Coupon-mad

The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

That tells me you have used a very old defence. CEL do not 'badly mailmerge' fake claims any more which is when we used that wording.

KeithP

The Claim Form issued on the 23rd September 2019...

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd September, you have until Monday 14th October to do the Acknowledgement of Service. If possible, do not do the AoS before 28th September, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 28th October 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over 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 the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

ActiveSec

am I still able to send a SAR to CEL as it is our company that the claim is against?

1505grandad

From the ICO guide to GDPR:-

At a glance

Individuals have the right to access their personal data.

This is commonly referred to as subject access.

Individuals can make a subject access request verbally or in writing.

You have one month to respond to a request.

You cannot charge a fee to deal with a request in most circumstances.

ActiveSec

I've now received a letter from CEL which includes a 3 page Particulars Of Claim document.
Do I need to respond to this at all?

Redx

I doubt it , if the N1 claim form said POC to follow , then these are they

But it may mean that you alter your defence or adapt it due to receiving the POC

AFAIK a company cannot issue a SAR

You should read recent 2019 cases and sort out your Defence draft

Coupon-mad

Look at other threads with company defendants.

Might be quite hard to find them due to the keywords being non-specific, but try searching for company defence and picking your way through the results.

KeithP

Now that you have received the Particulars of Claim, do not forget to complete the Acknowledgment of Service by Monday 14th October - as described in my earlier post.

Do it as soon as you like now.