Witness Statement and Trial Date - CEL Parking fine

mamangam

Hello all,
I had a Parking fine from Civil Enforcement back in Dec 2018 for overstaying the 3 hours ( my bad as I didn't look the time) which has now gone to County court  to claim £280 in total and is at WS Stage. The hearing is currently scheduled in last week of May and when I checked with and they have already paid the trial fees. I have got a settlement offer for £125 from them. I was working on the WS by going through lot of thread here to submit one by next week. Today I have received from court which reads as following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT IS ORDERED THAT
Following guidance from the Lord Chief Justice , the Civil Judge has directed that the hearing on "Date" at " Xx Couty court " be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Once the Court receives further instructions, parties will be notified.
Any dates to avoid can be filed at Court
Parties should try to seek to settle the matter if at all possible, and to notify the court as soon as any settlement has been reached.
Dated 5 may 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this mean that its been adjourned as they have offered a Settlement and CEL has informed the court about the same? Also can I now delay my WS as teh hearing has been postponed? And anything which I need to do?

Appreciate your help and support for me to fight this.

beamerguy

I have got a settlement offer for £125 from them
Why do you think  they dropped it by more than half ???? 
It's probably because they know they will lose and/or they will now be desperate for money due to COVID.
Don't be sucked into a scam.  Tell the court and CEL that you agree with the adjournment until a later date.
Continue to complete your WS so it's ready and your costs schedule.

Now, they were claiming £280 so that will include an added fake £60. Could you say how how they calculated the claim please

Coupon-mad

mamangam said:

IT IS ORDERED THAT
Following guidance from the Lord Chief Justice , the Civil Judge has directed that the hearing on "Date" at " Xx Couty court " be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Once the Court receives further instructions, parties will be notified.
Any dates to avoid can be filed at Court
Parties should try to seek to settle the matter if at all possible, and to notify the court as soon as any settlement has been reached.
Dated 5 may 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this mean that its been adjourned as they have offered a Settlement and CEL has informed the court about the same? Also can I now delay my WS as teh hearing has been postponed? And anything which I need to do?

No it is a coincidence, and has nothing to do with the standard begging letter for £125.  CEL have not told the court about such an offer because you and they can't discuss offers with the court at this stage (pre-hearing). 

You can delay the WS and evidence because the hearing is adjourned.

Send the court any dates in the rest of the year to avoid (family birthdays or weddings in the Winter, due date weeks of a baby, etc!).  

And send the same dates to avoid to CEL and tell them to discontinue because their claim has no merit.

D_P_Dance

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, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, 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.

mamangam

beamerguy said:

Now, they were claiming £280 so that will include an added fake £60. Could you say how how they calculated the claim please

The break up is as follows:
£100 - PCN
£70 - Debt Recovery Costs
£10.92 - Interest on PCN
£25 - court fee
£25 - trial fee
£50 - Legal Rep costs

mamangam

Coupon-mad said:

You can delay the WS and evidence because the hearing is adjourned.

Send the court any dates in the rest of the year to avoid (family birthdays or weddings in the Winter, due date weeks of a baby, etc!).  

And send the same dates to avoid to CEL and tell them to discontinue because their claim has no merit.

Thanks CM. Good that I am now getting more time for the WS else would have struggled. I received their WS and Settlement offer via email during last week March . I have tried responding to their Email but its failing. Looks like they set up temporary email addresses as well. Any direction on which I should prepare my WS and evidence? My plans is to do on the signage and the contract between them and landowner.

Coupon-mad

Signage
landowner contract
POFA if the keeper is the Defendant and there's no evidence as to driver
£70 'Debt Recovery Costs' are not true and are unrecoverable (as per all WS & defences you read here).

D_P_Dance

Debt recovery costs are never allowed in ciort, the DCA usually offers a no win no fee deal.  The legal fees can only e awarded bu an judge, and the interest is almost certainly overstated, read this,

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

The_Slithy_Tove

It may be worth posting up what the defence was that you submitted for the claim against you. That way, the experts here can ensure you get the right guidance for the Witness Statement. Or, put more bluntly, some people submit awful outline defences that mean you need to be somewhat creative to ensure the full defence sticks to what the original defence was.

mamangam

This is the defence which I had filed back in Oct 2019:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the County Court

 

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited vXXX

 

Claim Number:

XXXXX

 

I am XXXXX, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle XXXXX.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 23/09/2019 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not hand signed by a legal person. The signature looks like a photocopy. 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. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. An example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for an overstay, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

3. The Claimant is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information and are very vague.

4. The Letter before claim is very vague as to what the outstanding debt is in relation to and offers no breakdown of costs.

5. The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Particulars of Claim did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs, merely stating the use of ANPR.

6. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

7. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) Whether the matter is being brought for overstay, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge.

(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)

(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)

(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper

(v) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

Once these particulars have been filed, the defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

8. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of 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 the Defendant liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 also states that if no physical Parking Charge Notice was placed on the vehicle, the Parking Charge Notice must be served within 14 days of the incident occurrence, however in this case, it was served after this period.

9. 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 (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I also deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

10. 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.

11. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(i) 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.

(ii) Non-existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.

(iii) It is believed the signage 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 by an authorised party using the premises as intended.

(iv) 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.

(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.

(ii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

(iii) Non-compliant with paragraph 18.8 - no BPA logo visible on any sign on the site.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. The Claimant is attempting to claim additional charges such as solicitors, court fee and legal costs of £75 The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have indeed been incurred. Furthermore, legal costs cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court and should be struck out as unrecoverable.

 

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coupon-mad

OK, all good, so now look at the NEWBIES thread about WS stage and the new statement of truth.