Defence against Civil Enforcement LTD

nosferatu1001

No, if you have revealed the driver, its pointless hiding now. 

There are loads of defence points. Youve read the newbies thread now? the 16 defences there? Im going to guess not - so, thats your job. 

D_P_Dance

Have you read the stickies, they are a good source of crib appeals.  

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation. 

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.

bagginsian

D_P_Dance said:

Have you read the stickies, they are a good source of crib appeals.  

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation. 

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.

I have emailed my local MP and also the MP within the boundary of the relevant car park. Thanks for the advice here. In the meantime, I continue to work on my defence, having read several of the defences posted in the Newbies thread. Thanks again thus far to you and all! 

bagginsian

I need to send my defence before close of play tomorrow afternoon: is this sufficient?

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

1. The claimant has not provided any proof or documentation to show that Civil Enforcement Ltd have any authority or a suitable contract with the landowner to represent them. This is despite a full SAR request from the defendant.  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.
2. The claimant challenges the accuracy of the ANPR camera times.  The burden of proof is on the claimant that the timings are accurate and set to the atomic clock. Ref this article http://smarthighways.net/questions-over-anpr-time-settings-put-fines-at-risk/  
3. The defendant has a receipt from Bargain Booze: a transaction timed at 12:56  The defendant left immediately after purchasing an item from this retail store on the site.  There is sufficient Inconsistency in retail store timings and ANPR supposed timings to render sufficient doubt that the defendant breached the terms by overstaying.  The claimant must explain why the retail stores and ANPR camera timings at the same site are inconsistent.
4. The facts are that upon entering the car park the defendant did not park for at least ten minutes after entry: time was spent looking for and then waiting for a suitable space to become available. This is a small car park and a large amount of spaces are not readily available so it must be reasonable to expect visitors to spend time looking for a space. I was not ‘parked’ during the total time that the claimants suggest. 
5. The facts are that the defendant actually only saw the further signage that detailed a £100 charge and 45 minutes waiting time upon entering Bargain Booze near the end of his stay.  The claimant must explain how the defendant is supposed to contract with the defendant if he has only seen the terms after this period of time?
6. British Parking Association guidelines state there must be a reasonable amount of grace period before issuing any kind of charge: The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place. The AA defines this as a ten minute period. Even if it were the case that the defendant overstayed, taking into account his waiting time of ten minutes before parking, and also a ten minute grace period, this puts the defendant as acting in good faith according to the alleged ‘contract’ and should not be pursued for any charge whatsoever. 
7. The original letter requested £60 if paid within 14 days or £100 after this. The cost of £193.81 is nearly double this and is entirely without justification.  This is clear attempt to penalise: a ‘cash grab’; an attempt to unreasonably add to the initial amount.  The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £93.81, which is a clear attempt at double recovery.
8. It is bought to the attention of the Court that despite being instructed of a new correspondence address on a letter sent on 19th January and acknowledging this in a reply letter to the new address, the claimant sent this court claim to an old address. A clear attempt to disrupt any defence and intentionally slow any response time.    
9. The court must consider the attempts by the claimant to confuse and misdirect the defendant in their correspondence.  The heading of their initial letter received refers to a ‘PCN’ in bold letters: an obvious attempt to pass off the letter as a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the council.
10. The terms on the Claimant's secondary signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.  The entrance to the car park states ‘Free Parking Terms Apply’ see car park signs for terms and conditions. It then invites to see signs for terms and conditions. There is no mention of any cost or any time periods at the point of entry to the car park. Therefore, the defendant did not ‘contract’ with the claimant. The potential £100 cost and time limit is only mentioned on further signs which can only be viewed after leaving the vehicle and using the retail premises on site. The font stating ‘you agree to pay £100’ is printed so small as to be unnoticeable and not sufficiently prominent. The alleged contract is unfair under the Consumer Acts 2015.
11. The entrance to the car park states “Free Parking Terms Apply’ see car park signs for terms and conditions.”  The defendant did not contract with the claimant at the point of entry to the car park that he should only stay for 45 mins or pay £100 as stated by the additional signage.  If the defendant decided to leave the car park after reading the additional signage and reject the terms, he would’ve already breached the alleged contract as the additional signs state ‘only for customers of these 3 shops only’ This is clearly unfair terms and doesn’t allow for any consideration or refusal of the terms without punitive action.  The £100 cost is only mentioned on secondary signs,  which can only be viewed after leaving the vehicle and using the retail premises on site. The font stating ‘you agree to pay £100’ is printed so small as to be unnoticeable and not sufficiently prominent.  Many of the signs, as show in the template, are small and low to the ground, and were obscured by parked vehicles on this day. The defendant only became aware of the £100 charge near the end of his stay as he read it on one of the signs next to the Bargain Booze shop.
12. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect 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."

Thanks folks. 

1505grandad

Check out:-

Suggested template defence to adapt for all parking charge cases where they add false admin costs posted 26.2.20 by Coupon-mad with instructions:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

Coupon-mad

Also, I just replied tonight on another CEL thread at the same stage and suggested some added words about Wonga-man who signed & filed this claim...copy that!

bagginsian

ok folks so my defence was submitted yesterday, using the Coupon Mad template plus my own facts taken from my above draft defence.