CEL taking me to court???

Izzycat13

Hi.
I'm being taken to court for monies i do not owe and now understand i should have acted differently. Pretty angry!
Back in 2019, i dropped off my family in a large car park and returned nearly 4 hours later to pick them up from the same spot. I received a PCN from CEL demanding money for 'parking' there, with pictures of the vehicle entering and leaving much later on, but the two other exit and entry missing. I replied using their reply letter and envelope explaining this PCN mistake and the vehicles movements. (I know I should acted differently now having read these pages, but i never thought i would need to look), this bizarrely is giving me concern as to their intentions?
The PCN is false and i've continued to receive more increasingly threatening CEL letters? In an attempt at an honest response becaiuse they are ignoring my accounts of the vehicle movements, i emailed CEL in May: 


Dear  'Legal Service'.

Firstly. The PCN you sent to this address was received on 1/7/2019, exactly 29 days after the incident. 

 There is no proof of signage in your correspondence. No proof of driver.

 On what legal authority do you continue to bully and harass? 

 The Claim Form issued on 10/3/20 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 Team. 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.

 The particulars of this bullying and threatening letter amount to nothing more than a scam. In response; your email above on the 20/5/2020: r.e. SAR request, there are numerous attachments therein that have never arrived at this address, there is reasonable belief that these letters have been deliberately falsified to scam monies.

 Letter of 9/7/19  This has never been seen before (CEL & No identifiable signatory) 

Letter of 17/9/19  This has never been seen before (CEL No identifiable signatory)

Letter of 25/10/19 This has never been seen before (Debt Recovery Plus?)

Letter of 11/11/19 This has never been seen before (Debt Recovery Plus?)

Letter of 27/11/19 This has never been seen before (Zenith Collections?)

Letter of 18/12/19 This has never been seen before (Zenith Collections?)

All above, Never received.

Regards....

2 weeks ago i received a County Court claim for £261? (amount claimed £186, court fee £25, legal representative £50?)

I have completed an accurate account of what has happened via the courts defence section and this morning I received a letter from the tribunal service acknowledging my 'defence'?
I'm now at the point after a stack of threatening and incorrect claim letters from CEL, that i've got this wolf chasing me for their mistake. Being honest and friendly has got me nowhere, hence my late incursion into an internet search as to what is going on? What I've found about CEL is upsetting and I wish I had researched them on day one.

Can anyone tell me what I can do next, because so far, I know now that my response has been 'not the way?'

Many thanks

Fruitcake

Is this the same case as your other thread? If so, please only post on that one. You had an LBC around April and were advised what you should do back then. 

What happened when you complained to the landowner?

Have you complained to your MP yet?

Have you complained to the DVLA yet?

Have you complained to the BPA yet?

Do you have any proof the car was elsewhere in between the entry and exit times such as dashcam footage, 'phone location tracking (unlikely after this time I know), receipts, photos, witness statements from people who saw the driver/car elsewhere?

Have you read the guide to court from the second post of the NEWBIES? You need to follow the steps precisely.

What exactly did you put in your defence?

You said you received a claim form on 10/3/20, but then said you received a County Court Claim two weeks ago. Was the first one perhaps a letter before claim? You need to be specific with your information.

If the latter date is correct, did you do the AoS in time? Did you file the defence at the same time (very unwise) or did you file it separately later?

Redx

Your witness statement should have had all those details , not your defence , but too late now because it's been accepted

The newbies thread post 2 told you what happens and when , but the next stage is the DQ stage , so either do it now online or wait for the DQ , then deal with it

Email a SAR to the DPO at CEL , attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of I D under the GDPR law

Post a draft copy of your so called defence below , so we can see how bad it is , an example of what it should have been is at the top of this forum and I suspect that it's nothing like it

This could have been resolved with a proper appeal to CEL in the first place , then to Popla , plus a landowner complaint and cancellation

In future , come here for advice , because at the moment it's been appalling in your official responses , despite your good intentions

Coupon-mad

I have completed an accurate account of what has happened via the courts defence section and this morning I received a letter from the tribunal service acknowledging my 'defence'?

OK, show us EXACTLY what you put.  You really should have counterclaimed for abuse of your data and harassment - too late now.

D_P_Dance

Read some of these

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5550336/double-dip-parking-list-of-cases

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the

scammer extra costs, 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 later this year,

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these companies, 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/of these Private Parking Companies.

Izzycat13

Hi, If I had reasonable suspicion of what now I fear is a total scam, my course of action would have been a very different path, i thought doing it oneself would be like anything, the right thing. It appears now i'm in some kind of mess, who are these people and how did i get here. Hindsight via this kind of avenue is not something i thought this would lead, but here I am, bewildered and a bit angry to say the least. I received notification of a court claim late Aug and went online a week later to the money claim website to simply put my case across. I did a brief look on this forum and picked out bits i thought were relevant...I know, I know!! :-(  
The réponse to the court is at the foot.

Because of my initial total ignorance of what is going on, have these people targeted and got another mug, i'm still at a loss to understand how they can do this? (MP letter is getting drafted) Have I been shafted?

Thanks, court open letter below:

1.
 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any relief in the sum claimed, the defendant did not park in the area. The
points below are within the scope of the Defendant’s own knowledge and honest belief.  It is noted in any case, that these Claimants use third party pre
-
written threatening templates as standard. This statement was prepared by the Defendant specifically for this matter and unlike the Claimant’s case, it deals properly and individually with the facts, the alleged
contract, and the quantum. 


2.
In relation to parking
on private land, it is settled law that for any penalty to escape being 
struck out under the penalty rule, it must be set at a level which already includes recovery of 
the costs of operating the scheme. However, this Claimant routinely claims (as in this
case) a 
global sum of
£261
per alleged PCN. 
This figure is a penalty
, far exceeding the charge in 
the
Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67
case and falling foul of the binding authority 
in
Parking Eye Ltd v Somerfield Stores
[2012] EWCA Civ 1338
. In the 2012 case, the Court 
of Appeal held that £135 would be an unrecoverable penalty but a claim for the 
PCN itself 
would not
[ref: para 419].
Thereafter
,Parking Eye quietly dropped their ‘PCN plus 
indemnity costs’ double recovery business model
and 
pursued £85
in the
Beavis case
,where
it was determined by the
Supreme Court
that a
significant justification for that
private PCN was that it already
included
all operational costs [
ref: paragraphs 98, 193 and 198
]
.




 

The Claim is tainted by an abuse of process and should not proceed to trial.

 

3.  It is an abuse of process for a Claimant to issue an inflated claim for a sum which it is not entitled to recover. The above authorities could not be clearer. Parking firms must choose between a ‘Beavis-level’ charge calculation or loss-based damages. 

 

4. Where it is clear as a matter of law at the outset that even if a Claimant were to succeed in proving all the facts that he offers to prove he will not be entitled to the remedy that he seeks, a trial of the facts would be a waste of time and money, and the Defendant submits that it is proper that this action should be taken out of court as soon as possible.

 

5.  This matter was recently determined by District Judge Grand, sitting at Southampton County Court on 11 November 2019, where the Claimants sought to have multiple strike out Orders set aside. The application was dismissed, and a copy of the Approved Judgment is appended to this defence. No appeal was made in that case, where the learned Judge found that £160 parking claims represented an abuse of process that ‘tainted’ each case. It was not in the public interest for courts to allow exaggerated claims to proceed and merely disallow the added £60 at trial on a case-by-case basis. To continue to do so would restrict the proper protections only to those relatively few consumers robust enough to reach hearing stage.

6.  Should this claim continue, the Claimant will no doubt try to mislead the court by pointing to their Trade Association ‘ATA’ Code of Practice (‘CoP’) that now includes a clause 'allowing' added costs/damages. The CoP is a self-serving document, written in the parking firms’ interests. Further, the ‘admin fee’ model was reportedly the proud invention of a member of the BPA Board, Gary Osner, owner of ZZPS and whose previous firm, Roxburghe (UK) Limited, folded after being declared ‘unfit’ by the Office of Fair Trading who refused to renew their consumer credit licence due to ‘unfair and misleading’ business practice.

 

7.  On the date claimed, There was an organised public event in the area; the only reason the named vehicle entered that car park was it was too busy to continue into the city and the vehicle was used to drop off family members travelling on by foot. The named vehicle did not park at this area at all on the day CEL claim, the vehicle was in the car park area twice for a total of no more than 10 minutes combined, the second brief return visit was to pick up family members departing from that same area.

The absence of the pictures of the vehicle entering and soon after exiting again on both occasions is dubious in it’s absence. The car park was bumper to bumper busy, but why did the cameras not pick it up?

The court attention is drawn to the fact that this bogus PCN arrived outside the statutory legal 28 days legally allowed, and the Claim Form issued on 10/3/20 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction, as it was not signed by a legal person. Attention is drawn to the fact that not a single document sent from CEL holds a signature from anybody.

 

8. The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Schedule 2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was agreed by the driver, nor was the driver actually ‘parked’ at said venue.

 

 

9. Without the Beavis case to prop it up, and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a motorist -nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations -and nor can the operator claim an unconscionable sum. 

10.Further, in its conduct and signage, this Claimant has failed to comply with the CoP that they are signed up for, such as it is. Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, it is an unfair/misleading business practice to state that a Trader complies with a Code of Practice, but in reality, does not. 

11. In summary, the Claimant's Particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and the abuse of process taints this Claim. The Claimant knew, or should have known, that an exaggerated claim where the alleged ‘debt’ exceeds £100 (ATA Code of Practice ceiling for a private PCN)is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA. The Defendant invites the court to find that this claim and exaggerated claim is false and entirely without merit, and to bring an end to the case without a hearing. 

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Redx

We understand your bewilderment , which is why we volunteers help others like yourself , it's currently an unregulated industry , which is why the government Parking Bill sailed through parliament last year , the one Sir Greg Knight tabled and there is a public consultation on the new CoP at the moment , so let them know too

Anyone can take anyone else to court for almost anything , especially invoices , so nothing new , these parking companies exploit it , hence the new regulations that will come in

Meanwhile , it's good to know that your defence was assisted by examples here , so all is not lost

Do the SAR

Do the DQ by filling it in and emailing it to the ccbcaq address in Northampton

Then you have months to assemble your WS plus Exhibits plus summary costs assessment , for after your local court contact you 

You missed a trick in not counter claiming

Don't beat yourself up , you are one of many thousands taken to court annually

Take a chill pill , hunker down for the long haul , use your time wisely , reading other court case threads from this year only , you will learn a lot , like we do , do not disappear , do not go it alone

Coupon-mad

Not sure what you are worried about, you used the bulk of our template defence and you added relevant detail at point #7.  Nice!

You are more than halfway there.  

A decent witness statement and evidence before the hearing and you will either see it discontinued last-gasp, having wasted your time, or you'll 99% likely win at the hearing.

AND - please now make a real difference - A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER.

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters, and MUST GO because that is unfair and illegal.

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!

nosferatu1001

As above - and no more long rantin posts, not needed! Makes it hard to separate out the good stuff you have there, from your worries. 

D_P_Dance

In the first reply you were asked if this is a duplicate thread.  Is it, I cannot fid an answer.

Le_Kirk

Is it the same case as this one: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6126902/help#latest
It is normal to continue posting on an existing thread but as you have opened a new one and there is nothing on your old one, please continue on here and go to your other thread and type a reply to indicate it is a duplicate thread and regulars can safely ignore it (as they have done since April!)