Civil Enforcement Limited Claim Form - Defence

ogtennant

Hi All,
I've recently been ignoring some PCN's from parking eye. I have had a couple in the past and they just went away! Although this one didn't. I received a claim form the county court and it all felt a bit too real so I thought I'd seek some internet advice! I have found this wonderful forum that seems promising in helping me battle this.

The issue date is 24th Feb 2020 I have only just submitted my AoS form today following the Newby thread (07/03/2020) so that should leave me 15 days still to submit my defence? I shouldn't have left it so long but I do have a tendency to bury my head in the sand. LOL!

The claim is for a total of £267.97. Making up of £50 for legal rep costs, £25 for court fee and £192.97 amount claimed.

The situation for me is that I was collecting a parcel from my local post delivery office. The office is situated off a main road, as you turn into it you are faced with a Y-junction turning right will take you to the delivery office however there was a gate shutting this off. the only other turning is left into the car park of a GP doctor surgery. I don't recall seeing any pay and display signage. I did park there run over the office collect my parcel (all of 5 minutes) run back to my car quickly open my parcel to check then went on my way.

I went back a few weeks ago to check the car park and saw a sign saying  "no parking or turning for post office staff or customers" granted I missed this sign as I drove in but it wasn't stated what would happen if one was to park there. There was only one sign saying it and I was using the post office but there was no where else to park!!! I have no idea if I was a post office and parked there then that means there aren't any grounds for me to fight on?

So I've been looking in the newby thread and also following this thread as it seems similar to my situation: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5980710/civil-enforcement-ltd-county-court-claim-form/p1 

I have copied the defence written from this thread and will paste it below:

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Claim Form issued on 24th February 2020 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by 'Civil Enforcement Limited' as the Claimant's Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and are in such positions 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.

6. The alleged breach, according to Civil Enforcement Ltd, is in contravention of terms and conditions. The signs in this car park are not at all prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. Only one small sign is clearly visible, positioned directly in front of the car park entrance. The words "Free Parking" are displayed on this sign, but this sign is misleading as although it states terms apply, it doesn't state what those terms are. There is no indication there is a maximum 90 minute parking limit on this sign. Other signs in this car park are sporadically placed, out of the line of sight for a driver and not clearly visible, especially in the evening when it's dark with no sufficient lighting. It is therefore possible to park and not be able to see any clear signage which complies with BPA requirements. Given this lack of clarity, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the "contra proferentem" principle. Civil Enforcement Ltd are required to show evidence to the contrary.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

9. The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 (PoFA 2012). The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle on the material date, but there is no evidence of who was driving. As the Claimant has not identified the driver, it cannot be assumed the keeper/driver are one and the same at the time of the supposed contravention (POFA 2012).

10. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

I do need some help with statement "1" about the legal rep. on my claim for there is a truth statement it's signed by an "S Wilson, Head of Legal" Claimants legal representative. does this mean statement 1 in this defence is not valid for me? I would have thought all claim forms are laid out the same! 

Also some help with the statement "6" where in my case the car park was not a pay and display and a sign did state that there was no parking but only one sign and no description of what would happen if someone was to park. I am struggling to put this into a paragraph off context (English is not my strong subject).

Just to clarify once I feel my defence is feasible and confirmed by you guys I should- Print it and sign it, scan it back in as a PDF, email it too CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk with claim number and defence in subject? What are the steps after this?

I really hope this makes sense and thank you so so so much to anyone in advance who can help me out with this! 

Thanks,

ogtennant.

KeithP

I received a claim form the county court...
The issue date is 24th Feb 2020 I have only just submitted my AoS form today following the Newby thread (07/03/2020) so that should leave me 15 days still to submit my defence?

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 30th March 2020 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To file a Defence, follow the guidance in this post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76880595#Comment_76880595

Guidance on creating a Defence is also in that thread - in the first post on that thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

ogtennant

Guidance on creating a Defence is also in that thread - in the first post on that thread.

Thank you so much for your quick reply Keith!!

So should I replace my current defence with the template you submitted in that post?

KeithP

Sorry, I can't claim credit for that template, but yes, I think you should use it.

D_P_Dance

Parking Eye's signs leave much to be desired.  Some judges are now ruling that they do not form a legally binding contract, read this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

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 has been known to get the charge cancelled.

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.

The_Slithy_Tove

D_P_Dance said:

Parking Eye's signs leave much to be desired. 

I believe it was CEL, not PE, despite the first sentence in the OP. Maybe the poster could confirm. The amount claimed certainly points towards the deliberately inflated sums that CEL pluck out of the air.

ogtennant

The_Slithy_Tove said:

D_P_Dance said:

Parking Eye's signs leave much to be desired. 

I believe it was CEL, not PE, despite the first sentence in the OP. Maybe the poster could confirm. The amount claimed certainly points towards the deliberately inflated sums that CEL pluck out of the air.

It was CEL. One sign says "No parking or turning for post office staff or customers" I was a customer of the post office but this hasn't been disclosed yet.

There is another sign that I completely missed which I have found on google maps saying "Permit holders only, see car park signs for terms and conditions" The signs that this signs are referring too are in the centre edges of the car park I did not see these as I parked in the first space turning into the car park.

I just feel I may not have a leg to stand on as I technically did break the "no parking rule" however I did not see any consequence to parking until now on the small T+C signs is this a valid enough argument?!?!

Just to confirm on the defence posted by Keith, The defence should remain exactly the same as posted apart from the red font. statement 16 and 17 are for defence statements relevant to the individual case at hand? 

Thanks again!

KeithP

Just to confirm on the defence posted by Keith, The defence should remain exactly the same as posted apart from the red font. statement 16 and 17 are for defence statements relevant to the individual case at hand? 

It does say on that thread...

Everything shown in red is something that needs editing by you and changing to black font once you've done it...

ogtennant

KeithP said:

Just to confirm on the defence posted by Keith, The defence should remain exactly the same as posted apart from the red font. statement 16 and 17 are for defence statements relevant to the individual case at hand? 

It does say on that thread...

Everything shown in red is something that needs editing by you and changing to black font once you've done it...

Apologies Keith it just don't want to get it wrong lol!! 

I've added these points in for 16 and 17, do you guys think they are suitable arguments for the defence:

1.     The signage provided by the landowner does not provide clear instructions or adequate information to form a legally binding contract between the Claimant and the Defendant. Given the nature of the environment a single width lane for both incoming and outgoing traffic, 2 small signs is simply not acceptable for the Defendant to read small sign lettering as well as focus on the traffic coming both ways while practicing safe driving methods.

 

2.     One of the signs noted reads “See car park signs for terms and conditions”, this sign is situated directly in front of a 24-hour ambulance access road. It can not be expected for the Claimant to stop, blocking an ambulance access road to read the small print of a poorly planned signpost.

Thanks for all the help guys

Coupon-mad

Can we just clear this up first, and stop you saying this?

I just feel I may not have a leg to stand on

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76538109#Comment_76538109"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76555820#Comment_76555820">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76555820#Comment_76555820"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6083838/new-battle/p2" title="Link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6083838/new-battle/p2">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6083838/new-battle/p2

...as yours needs to mention PCM v Bull and PACE v Lengyel. 

Read the Bull and the Lengyel transcripts from the Judges to see where I am coming from.   They are both hosted by the Parking Prankster on his CASE LAW webpages. (and don't forget at WS and evidence stage to actually print those out...not now though!  The defence you are doing only has Appendices A, B, and C as shown in the first post of the template defence thread where they are linked).  

ogtennant

Coupon-mad said:

Read this person's #8 and 8.1 in their defence:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6083838/new-battle/p2

...as yours needs to mention PCM v Bull and PACE v Lengyel. 

Read the Bull and the Lengyel transcripts from the Judges to see where I am coming from.   They are both hosted by the Parking Prankster on his CASE LAW webpages. (and don't forget at WS and evidence stage to actually print those out...not now though!  The defence you are doing only has Appendices A, B, and C as shown in the first post of the template defence thread where they are linked).  

Thank you very much! I'll add these points to my defence! I won't post the defence as it's too long and most of it remains the same. I'll be sending the defence over following the threads posted earlier will keep you posted..

Thanks for the help guys