Civil Enforcement ltd court claim form

Newcount

Thanks everyone for being patient and extremly helpful.
Just filed AOS online (learning the terms slowly).
As told through numerous posts and threads,I will start to put together a defense letter.
Will present it here once I have it ready.
Any advise welcome! (Been reading the newbie thread for two days,even though I cannot make much sense as very voluminous).
Thank you sincerely.

Newcount

Thank you @KeithP,sorry for the delay in replying. Wroting and reading between jobs,not easy. Also not used to the forum.
Thanks everyone,for a minute I thought I would pay them and save time and hassle.
Will keep you posted.

Le_Kirk

You only need NEWBIE post # 2 for now, so that cuts down the reading. There 17 prewritten defence examples linked from NEWBIE post # 2, if that is not enough, use the Forum Search function to find defences for your particular circumstances.

Some more advice. Learn that UK spelling is used in court and legal documents so it is defence and advice. Best to get it right for the judge!

Coupon-mad

Newcount wrote: »

I have no idea of covering the plate,I had no idea at all there was parking restriction as it is not an area I go usually,second time in the last three years. The first time did not have any problem at all,must have been recently that they installed Anpr.

Always cover your rear numberplate before you leave any retail park, hotel, hospital, not just at this site. Start looking for the ANPR cameras and protecting yourself an your livelihood by withholding your data and not actively consenting to any contract.

Newcount

Good evening
I put together a defence letter.it looks short and I am not sure.
Any advice please.



In the County Court
Claim Numberxxxxx
Betweenxxxxxx
And
Xxxxxx (the Defendant)

Defence

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

1. The claim Form issued on 23d September 2019 is not correctly filed under the practise Direction as it does not have a valid signature. Practise Direction 22 requires that a statement be signed by a person holding senior position and to state the position. The statement of truth is not signed and the claim must be struck out.
2. The Particulars of Claim discloses no cause of action. The claimant has not provided particulars to allow the defendant to provide a reasonable defence having not stated clearly in the letter what the charge is for.
3. The claimant is not the land owner and has no capacity to bring the claim unless its contract grants it. In the absence of written authority from the land owner in according with the British parking Association Code of Practice paragraph 7.2 states: “If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges,they must ensure they that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.”
The written authorisation must also set out:
a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined.
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation.
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs.
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.


4. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information'. This Code confirms that it applies to ANPR systems, and that the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the British Parking Association AOS are required to comply fully with the DPA, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to:
a. Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and
b. Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and
c. Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR at all times/days across the site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine customers and taking into account the prevailing conditions at the site on any given day), and
d. Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data would be used, and
e. Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the Data Protection Act (DPA). At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for a Subject Access Request, what that is, nor informed of the legal right to obtain all relevant data held.

5. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. 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. 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 (claim Number F0DP201T District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, and 10th June 2019).
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.

6. In summary, it is the Defendant position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real purpose 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 that the facts contained in this Defence are true.

xxxxxx