IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

Cel consolidated claim

2»

Replies

  • nosferatu1001nosferatu1001 Forumite
    13K Posts
    10,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Indeed, if both claims had the same lack of particulars, then it shoud support your "live" claim.
  • Indeed, if both claims had the same lack of particulars, then it shoud support your "live" claim.


    I don't understand what lack of particularity means, unfortunately. The two claims are from different parking sites. KFC for the one just struck off and NHS hospital the other.
  • FruitcakeFruitcake Forumite
    52.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Lack of particulars means they haven't told the defendant precisely what the claim is about.

    They often say they are claiming against the driver or keeper, so which is it?
    They say things like, breaching the Ts and Cs on site, but don't tell you what the Ts and Cs are and which one they are claiming the defendant breached.
    They don't say whether they are relying on the PoFA or not.

    … and so on.

    The place where the alleged event took place is irrelevant, it's the claim itself that you need to look at and compare to the one(s) you won.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister. :D
    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
  • Fruitcake wrote: »
    Lack of particulars means they haven't told the defendant precisely what the claim is about.

    They often say they are claiming against the driver or keeper, so which is it?
    They say things like, breaching the Ts and Cs on site, but don't tell you what the Ts and Cs are and which one they are claiming the defendant breached.
    They don't say whether they are relying on the PoFA or not.

    … and so on.

    The place where the alleged event took place is irrelevant, it's the claim itself that you need to look at and compare to the one(s) you won.
    Thank you. I understand now.
  • I have managed to put this together putting together information from various posts. Please read and any feedback is welcome. I also want to submit a schedule of cost and I got a template from one of the threads. Is there a form to attach this schedule to? Thanks


    IN THE COUNTY COURT AT xxxxxxxxxxx - Claim No: xxxxxxxx

    Between

    Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant)

    -and-

    Mxx xxxxxxxxxxx(Defendant)

    _____________________________________

    WITNESS STATEMENT
    _____________________________________

    I xxxxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx am the defendant in this case.
    1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.
    2. I assert I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence.
    DRIVER NOT IDENTIFIED
    3. Whilst I was the lessee/hirer of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and, as this event has been resurrected from almost three years, it is impossible to expect the Defendant to recall who might have been driving the vehicle at the material time.
    4. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. The Defendant therefore puts Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) to strict proof that any contract exists between the Claimant and the Defendant.
    5. The vehicle had multiple drivers as indicated by a Certificate of Motor Insurance (Ex xxxxx) and letter from the Insurance company (Ex xxxxx). There is no assumption in law that the lessee/hirer is also the driver of the vehicle. The Defendant has no obligation to prove they were the driver; the onus of proof is on the Claimant.
    6. The vital matter of 'keeper liability' regarding the law when parking on private land was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015 in the Annual Report where he stated:
    “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. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver."
    7. The Defence wishes to rely on Vehicle Control Services vs Sarah Quayle (2017) [C1DP0H0J], a striking similar case to this one in which the claimant wished to rely on Law of Agency in their pursuit to find keeper liability. The registered keeper persisted they were not the driver of the vehicle during the alleged contravention, a number of people were insured to drive the vehicle. In their judgement, Deputy District Judge Gourley stated the following:
    “It strikes me that there is a simple question that the court has to ask itself. Is there evidence produced by the claimant to show that Miss Quayle, and I will call her Miss Quayle for the remainder of the judgment, is there evidence to show from the claimant that Miss Quayle was on a balance of probabilities the driver on 28th December 2014 when the car was parked in the Princes Dock area? The claimant has produced absolutely no evidence that the defendant was the driver and simply says that they are entitled to presume that the defendant was the driver because effectively she was the registered keeper at the time. I disagree. I disagree particularly in light of the evidence that has been produced by Miss Quayle showing that there are two other people who are on the contract of insurance for this car. She is not the owner of the car albeit she is the registered keeper. The owner of the car is her partner, Mr Green, who also appears on the contract of insurance as one of the named drivers. She says in her witness statement that she was not the driver, but even if I ignore everything that Miss Quayle has produced and look solely at the evidence that is produced by the claimant, the claimant comes nowhere close to satisfying me on a balance of probabilities that the defendant was the driver at the time. They may have had a claim had they complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act, but they have not and they cannot pursue Miss Quayle on the basis of a breach of contract in the absence of any evidence at all that she was actually the driver at the time of the incurrence of the parking charge notice.’’ (section 6 and 7 of judgement) (Ex xxxxx).
    8. None of the documents set out in paragraph 13: 2 (a) (b) or (c) of POFA 2012 were ever provided to the Claimant by the vehicle hire firm XXXXXX UK Ltd - who are also the registered keepers of the vehicle (Ex xxxxx).
    9. Had the Claimant indeed received the above-mentioned documents; the Claimant was required to send a copy of those documents to the Defendant within 21 days after receiving them as set out in paragraph 14 (2) and (3) of POFA 2012 of the above exhibit. Again, the Claimant failed to do this.
    10. In Case number xxxxx on 22/01/20, District Judge Gilham sitting at the County Court at xxxxxx, struck out a similar claim by this Claimant. In judgement he stated “The Claim is struck out for lack of particularity showing no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim”. This current claim also has no cause of action and is so badly pleaded that it fails to even show how they contend they will hold a lessee/hirer liable, when it is a private lease vehicle with more than one driver insured to drive the car, and the Defendant was NOT the driver, and the Claimant has failed to follow the only applicable law (POFA Schedule 4 paras 13/14).
    UNCLEAR SIGNAGE
    10. Due to the sparseness of evidence pertaining to this alleged contravention and of the particulars, a Service Access Request (SAR) was made to the claimants Data Protection Officer via the Claimants stated contact email address on the xxxxxxxxxber 2019 for all information pertaining to this matter (Ex xxxxx).
    11. Furthermore, the Claimant has provided zero evidence that a parking contravention ever occurred. Google map images from the time of the alleged contravention and subsequent visits to the site were made to carry out research
    12. The allegation appears to be based on images recorded by the Claimant’s ANPR cameras at the junction of xxxxxx Road. Images of the vehicle received as part of the SAR (Ex xxxxx) are of poor quality and merely show the vehicle in transit, the registration number and no time stamps. No evidence of the vehicle occupying a prohibited parking space have been provided to the Defendant and Civil Enforcement Limited are required to show evidence of the contrary.
    13. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxxxx, of which the Defendant was the lessee/hirer, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by the Claimant, to enter a road and not a car park. Google earth images (Ex xxxxx) show car parks, car park entrances and vehicles around the site outside the car parks.
    14. Ex xxxxx show google map images of the vehicle location in Ex xxxxx. These images were taken in xxxxxxx 2017 as seen at the bottom of the images and clearly shows the entrance and exit of a road and not a car park. Distinct features have been highlighted to show this is the exact same spot. Signage in this area is also woefully inadequate as shown in exhibit 9. The terms on a fully zoomed image is still not visible. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
    16. Claimant failed to provide any evidence, that the vehicle in question was parked on site and as a result did not take up space in a parking bay, thus ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is distinguished, due to completely different facts.
    LANDOWNER / RIGHT TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS
    17. At no point has the Claimant proved they had the authority to operate or manage parking at the site listed in the Particulars of Claim. It is therefore rejected that CEL has the authority from the landowner sufficient to establish them as the “creditor” within the meaning of the Schedule 4: 2(1) (b) of POFA (2012) (Exhibit 4), nor establish them as a person who is able to recover parking charges, as laid out by the Claimants Trade Association Code of Practice 7.2 & 7.3. (Ex xxxxx)
    18. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Claimant has failed to provide this.
    ABUSE OF PROCESS
    19. The Parking Charge Notice issued by the Claimant to the Defendant clearly states the value of £70 Exhibit 22.
    Cost breakdown now (Exhibit 23):
    Parking Charge: £70
    Damages including £60 Costs (Exhibit 24): £136
    Interest: £34.72
    Court fee: £25
    Legal Representative costs: £50
    Total costs now: £315.72
    There is no explanation in the particulars for the inflated charges, additional damages and interest claimed. These sums have been held to be unrecoverable (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67). It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue knowingly inflated claims.
    20. In Claim number F0DP163T on 11/07/19, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out an overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.
    21. In Claim F0DP201T on 10/06/19, District Judge Taylor Southampton Court echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand (Exhibit 11), who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. The Judge stated: ‘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...’
    22. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number F2QZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019 (Exhibit 12), District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''
    23. In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court had clearly heard about the decisions affecting the IOW, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit because he summarily struck out multiple parking ticket claims from various firms all due to the adding of the false £60 costs to £100 parking charge, that already indisputably (in law and case law) includes those costs. The same costs have been added to this claim (Ex xxxxxx).
    23.1. The Judge determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' further, in issuing his Orders striking out several £160 parking claims without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.
    24. 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, harassing and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made.
    25. The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
    26. If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.
    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

    Signature of Defendant:

    Name:

    Date:
  • Coupon-mad wrote: »
    If they are similar, include that Order as an exhibit and state that THIS current claim also has no cause of action and is so badly pleaded that it fails to even show how they contend they will hold a lessee/hirer liable, when it is a private lease vehicle with more than one driver insured to drive the car, and the Defendant was NOT the driver, and the Claimant has failed to follow the only applicable law (POFA Schedule 4 paras 13/14).

    Show us your WS first. Nice result with the first one!
    Thank you. I have made reference to it in paragraph 10
  • edited 7 February 2020 at 3:54PM
    simbororo2018simbororo2018 Forumite
    24 Posts
    10 Posts
    edited 7 February 2020 at 3:54PM
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    If they are similar, include that Order as an exhibit and state that THIS current claim also has no cause of action and is so badly pleaded that it fails to even show how they contend they will hold a lessee/hirer liable, when it is a private lease vehicle with more than one driver insured to drive the car, and the Defendant was NOT the driver, and the Claimant has failed to follow the only applicable law (POFA Schedule 4 paras 13/14).

    Show us your WS first. Nice result with the first one!
    Thank you. I have made reference to it in paragraph 10

    UPDATE:
    Thanks to all who help on this forum. After sending my witness statement to the court and CEL I have today received a notice of discontinuance from CEL. 
    In the past year, this forum has helped me beat 4 of this fictitious and bogus claims (3 from CEL and 1 from BW Legal). I cannot express my gratitude enough for the support and knowledge gained from this forum. Thank you all.
    #anotheronebitesthedust

This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides