Civil enforcement ltd. Template defence struck out

Mitchell06

I had a claim made against me by Civil Enforcement Ltd where my car had been parked in a private car park at a local trampoline centre. I had been to the trampoline centre many times before and the car park had always been free to use. Apparantly it seems that they had got Civil enforcement to manage the car park and put up car reg cameras. I had letters from CIL regarding a fine last year as Apparantly you are now supposed to put your reg number into a computer screen in reception which I was not notified of and there were no obvious signs. I have complained many times to the trampoline centre but it has fallen on death ears and they have since stopped using any management company due to all the complaints by others in the same situation.

CIL put in a County court claim, I followed the guide in the FAQ, I used the template defence and changed it where required to suit my own incident. I have received an email today from my local court informing me that my defence has been truck out as it does not comply with CPR part 16.5 and 16d paragraphs.

I have until the 9th October to serve a further defence but I have no idea where to go from here. Thank you guys for any help. I've attached a copy of my defence that was struck out. 

bargepole

I'm surprised that these template defences aren't struck out more often. Burying the facts of the parking event at para.17, and giving very little detail even then, will annoy many Judges. All that opening waffle is something Judges will have read many times before, and their eyes will glaze over when they read it for the umpteenth time.

Anyone with any kind of legal training will tell you that the golden rules are 1) Establish the facts; 2) Apply the law to the facts. Not the other way round.

The Order requires the OP to file a Defence compliant with CPR 16.5, which says as follows;

Content of defence

16.5

(1) In his defence, the defendant must state –

(a) which of the allegations in the particulars of claim he denies;

(b) which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the claimant to prove; and

(c) which allegations he admits.

(2) Where the defendant denies an allegation –

(a) he must state his reasons for doing so; and

(b) if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the claimant, he must state his own version.

(3) A defendant who –

(a) fails to deal with an allegation; but

(b) has set out in his defence the nature of his case in relation to the issue to which that allegation is relevant,

shall be taken to require that allegation to be proved.

(4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation.

(5) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), a defendant who fails to deal with an allegation shall be taken to admit that allegation.

(6) If the defendant disputes the claimant’s statement of value under rule 16.3 he must –

(a) state why he disputes it; and

(b) if he is able, give his own statement of the value of the claim.

Coupon-mad

Unusual!   To be fair, the template defence needs updating again but I am snowed under so won't be redoing it this week.

As your PCN will have been by ANPR, why not adapt one of the similar ParkingEye examples in the NEWBIES thread and show us your draft?  You should add a point that a sum has been added which is unrecoverable and double recovery (i.e. a single extra point added to a ParkingEye version and change to 'Civil Enforcement' of course).

Apparently you are now supposed to put your reg number into a computer screen in reception.

Did you miss the ParkingEye defence example about that exact scenario?  It's in the NEWBIES thread!

1505grandad

A heads up:-

In view of you admitting in the D para 17 that you are RK but NOT the driver - in any communications has the id of the driver been in anyway suggested (as in your opening post)?.

Coupon-mad

Let us see your new draft, based on the similar ParkingEye example in the NEWBIES thread. This is easily sorted.
This scam is so horrific for you, so please also do this next week:

PLEASE CHANNEL YOUR ANGER ABOUT THIS PATHETIC CHARGE TO CHANGE THE WAY THE PARKING INDUSTRY WORK:

CALLING ALL NEWBIES! 

 

An urgent task – deadline approaching in a week or so:

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have yet, and time is running out. 

The Government is consulting for just a few more days, about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework intended to rein in the rogue parking firms. 

Does it go far enough?  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation (two separate consultation documents).

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

BSI PAS 232 – COMMENTING ON THE CODE OF PRACTICE AS DRAFTED:

1.    You will need to register then log in, to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker.  

 

2.    Register, log into the BSI page, and download & read the cover letter here:

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

 

3.    Read the cover letter again and note the suggested extra questions... if you agree that, say, the 'loading/unloading and dropping off, asking for directions, and disabled people parking on double yellows as they can on street' activities listed should be exempt (not parking events, what do you think?) then please go to the Annexes at the end of the PAS Code and find the one about Exempt Vehicles and state what other activity you think should be added to the exempt list. 

 

4.    Download the PAS itself and start commenting on what you wish to say something about.  Quick links to each section appear on the left of your page. 

 

You don’t have to comment on everything, e.g. you might want to skip the definitions and focus on later sections, and certainly look at the Annex tables at the end that show things like consideration & grace periods and exemptions.

 

5.    Submit comments when you are happy with them. Don’t just ‘SAVE’ and forget!

 

THAT IS HALF THE JOB DONE!

THE MHCLG CONSULTATION IS EASIER AS IT IS JUST A LIST OF QUESTIONS. 

 

6.    You can do it first if preferred or pushed for time:

https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=EGg0v32c3kOociSi7zmVqAVPfAOtwRxLhHRwQ610oElUMzhQSVo0WUQ4SERVSEZaUU9DTUhFQ1VMUy4u

If your answers exceed 4000 characters (approx. 500 words to a single question or 16000 words (approx. 2500 words) for all the questions below, you can email your answers to parking@communities.gov.uk as long as you state who you are.

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS YOU WILL SEE, FOR RESPONSES TO THE FRAMEWORK:

Q1 Do you agree or disagree that members of APAs should be required to use a single appeals service appointed by the Secretary of State?

Strongly agree/Somewhat agree/Neither agree nor disagree/Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree

 

Q1.1 Please explain your answer

(free text)

 

 

Q2 Please provide any other feedback on the determination of appeals, including the funding model and features that an appeal service should offer e.g. telephone or in-person hearings, the ability to submit evidence online

(free text)

 

Q3 Please provide any comments you have on the proposal to enforce the Code by combining the ATA’s existing audit procedures with additional safeguards.

(free text)

 

Q4 Please outline any alternative means by which the Code could be monitored and enforced. You may wish to cite evidence from other regulatory frameworks which are relevant.

(free text)

 

Q5 Please provide any feedback you have on the proposed governance arrangements for monitoring the new Code of Practice

(free text)

 

Q6 Which parking charge system is most appropriate for private parking?

 a) the Three-tiered system

 b) Mirroring the Local Authority system

(free text)

 

 Q6.1 Please explain your answer. You may, for example, wish to make reference to other deterrent frameworks (for example, for railway tickets or traffic violations)

(free text)

 

 

Q7 What level of discount is appropriate:

40% as is currently offered in private parking and suggested in the three-tiered system, or

50% as is offered in Local Authority parking?

a) 40%

b) 50%

 

Q7.1 Please explain your answer, including whether the discount should be set at a different level

(free text)

 

 

 Q8 How should the level of parking charges be set and how should the levels be revised in future?

(free text)

 

 

Q9 Do you agree or disagree in principle with the idea of the Appeals Charter?

Agree/Disagree

 

Q9.1 Please explain your answer

(free text)

 

 

Q10 Do you agree or not that the examples given in the Appeals Charter are fair and appropriate? Agree/Disagree

 

Q10.1 Please explain your answer.

You may wish, for example, to suggest additional cases to be covered in an Appeals Charter or query existing examples.

(free text)

 

Q11 Do you agree or disagree that the parking industry should contribute towards the cost of the regulation?

Agree/Disagree

 

Q11.1 Please explain your answer.

(free text)

 

YOU CAN INSTEAD GIVE MORE CONCISE ANSWERS ONLINE, USING THE MHCLG PAGE LINK.

Don’t forget that answering these questions is the easier bit…

Looking at the BSI PAS (the draft code of practice itself) involves logging in and submitting comments again, and again and again and takes more time!

There is a discussion about PAS submissions and what the pages look like, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6195417/am-i-doing-something-wrong/p1

 

Mitchell06

1505grandad said:

A heads up:-

In view of you admitting in the D para 17 that you are RK but NOT the driver - in any communications has the id of the driver been in anyway suggested (as in your opening post)?.

No, at no point have I suggested as to the ID of the driver. 

Mitchell06

Coupon-mad said:

Unusual!   To be fair, the template defence needs updating again but I am snowed under so won't be redoing it this week.

As your PCN will have been by ANPR, why not adapt one of the similar ParkingEye examples in the NEWBIES thread and show us your draft?  You should add a point that a sum has been added which is unrecoverable and double recovery (i.e. a single extra point added to a ParkingEye version and change to 'Civil Enforcement' of course).

Apparently you are now supposed to put your reg number into a computer screen in reception.

Did you miss the ParkingEye defence example about that exact scenario?  It's in the NEWBIES thread!

Yeah I was pretty shocked myself too. Do you suggest using the Parking Eye defence in the newbies forum as a new template. I have made clear in my previous defence that I was not driving the vehicle where as the parking Eye defence acknowledges that the Defendant was the driver. 

nosferatu1001

Yes, literally they said to use PE defence. 
Of course you alter that. ITs an obvious thing to do. It also doesnt matter who was driving IF PE met POFA - and you can of course conffirm that yourself. 

Umkomaas

nosferatu1001 said:

Yes, literally they said to use PE defence. 
Of course you alter that. ITs an obvious thing to do. It also doesnt matter who was driving IF PE met POFA - and you can of course conffirm that yourself. 

It's CEL in this case. Without viewing the actual NtK, from memory, CEL don't meet PoFA requirements. 

Mitchell06

I've attached a copy of my parking charge notice if it helps. 

Mitchell06

So bit of an update. I sent a revised defence using the recommended one in the Parking Eye newbies thread. I have now received a letter from the courts informing me I have a hearing set for 5th February on the condition the claimant pays the £25 fee by 8th January otherwise the case will be struck out. I'm now under the understanding that I must provide a witness statement at least 2 weeks before the hearing date.

Do CEL tend to turn up to hearings or  even pay the £25 fee to begin with? I won't have any problem attending court but it would be great if its struck out to save the hassle.