Court Action - Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) parking with 'No Permit'

Shadowfax1000

Le_Kirk said:

You should use "on an unremarkable day some xxx months/years ago".  ANPR will never show photographs of occupants of a car just the VRM on the number plate (unless it was CCTV).

 I refer you to the following case law:

You should write in the third person so "I" becomes "the Defendant".  I think your paragraph 4 should be given more importance and you should explain why they fail POFA - the judge might not be up to speed on it.  Also separate it from the "barrage of threatening letters, it is a separate subject.

Yes I understand that first point now
Thanks for the Grammar correction, will do
Why they fail on POFA, that would be something I need to clarify for myself tbh!! At the moment I would struggle for more text on that.

Redx

Shadowfax1000 said:

KeithP said:

Where is the suggestion that you send a SAR to anyone other than the parking company?

CEL don't use an external firm of solicitors - except for getting them to send threatening, but harmless, debt collectors letters.

No sorry it was this text that I'd seen in the Newbies section:

As well as the SAR to the parking firm's DPO, also write another email, if they are using Gladstones, DCLegal, BW Legal or other solicitor.
Your email tells the solicitor:
(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.
(b) I have sent your client a SAR
(c) also confirm your correct 'address for service' if you've moved and the PPC has two addresses.

But as you've confirmed they aren't using the external QDR solicitors

That is in the LBC letter before claim section , not after a claim has been issued !!

We prefer people do the SAR long before a court claim , where the 30 days hold gets the SAR reply back before any court claim is actually issued , so like the grand national you jump Beecher's brook after the start fence but before the final furlong , not in any old order, order brings clarity

Le_Kirk

Shadowfax1000 said:

Le_Kirk said:

You should use "on an unremarkable day some xxx months/years ago".  ANPR will never show photographs of occupants of a car just the VRM on the number plate (unless it was CCTV).

 I refer you to the following case law:

You should write in the third person so "I" becomes "the Defendant".  I think your paragraph 4 should be given more importance and you should explain why they fail POFA - the judge might not be up to speed on it.  Also separate it from the "barrage of threatening letters, it is a separate subject.

Why they fail on POFA, that would be something I need to clarify for myself tbh!! At the moment I would struggle for more text on that.

The place to go for all your questions is always the NEWBIE sticky and I am sure you have been pointed there before.  Just in case you missed it, here is what is printed in the relevant part of the NEWBIE, first post, not far down that page: -

Want to dig deeper? Check the compliance of your Notice to Keeper, if the PPC is citing 'keeper liability' under the POFA. Here's a link to Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 which applies in England/Wales only (look for the words shown in paragraph 8 if it's a 'windscreen ticket followed by a NTK', or the words in paragraph 9 if it's a postal PCN only):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
If the NTK arrives late, this does not make the PCN 'void' but it means there is 'no keeper liability' possible.
If they are a firm which alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 (which they don't have to!) the a postal PCN must arrive by day 14 if there was no windscreen ticket.
Or, the NTK must arrive with you between day 29 and day 57 if there was a windscreen PCN.
Some firms (e.g. Civil Enforcement, Highview, Smart Parking, CP Plus and some small PPCs) don't even bother with POFA 2012 wording so the keeper is not liable and you must you point that out to POPLA.

Shadowfax1000

Redx said:

Shadowfax1000 said:

KeithP said:

Where is the suggestion that you send a SAR to anyone other than the parking company?

CEL don't use an external firm of solicitors - except for getting them to send threatening, but harmless, debt collectors letters.

No sorry it was this text that I'd seen in the Newbies section:

As well as the SAR to the parking firm's DPO, also write another email, if they are using Gladstones, DCLegal, BW Legal or other solicitor.
Your email tells the solicitor:
(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.
(b) I have sent your client a SAR
(c) also confirm your correct 'address for service' if you've moved and the PPC has two addresses.

But as you've confirmed they aren't using the external QDR solicitors

That is in the LBC letter before claim section , not after a claim has been issued !!

We prefer people do the SAR long before a court claim , where the 30 days hold gets the SAR reply back before any court claim is actually issued , so like the grand national you jump Beecher's brook after the start fence but before the final furlong , not in any old order, order brings clarity

Yes to be clear I only realised that this forum now has such clear indtructions on how to proceed, before that I was using advice and searching around etc.
My aim is to be laser sharp from now on because for the most part it seems to be about following process (content needs to be relevant of course though)

Shadowfax1000

3rd DRAFT

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXXX
Between
Civil Enforcement Limited
(Claimant)
- and -
XXXXXXX
(Defendant)
____________________
DEFENCE
____________________
 
1.   The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.
 
The facts as known to the Defendant:
2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant is unable to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time as the alleged incident was on an unremarked day to the Defendant, over 19 months ago.
 
3.   The Defendant was first made aware of the allegation via the Claimants ‘Parking Charge Notice’, dated XX/10/19, received on XX/10/19. This referred to an alleged parking offence at a car park that the Claimant deemed to be ‘Permit Holders Only’. The Defendant visited the site and determined that the Claimants signage cannot be read in the hours of darkness, which is when the alleged breach occurred. The Claimant was promptly made aware of the inability of their signs to be read in darkness by a letter, however the Claimant vexatiously rejected the appeal with a generic rejection, not addressing their breach of the code of practice that the Supreme Court found "effectively binding"
 
4.   The Defendants feels that their attempts to clarify this matter have been severely hampered by the Claimants inability to respond to the Defendants disputes to this claim and have instead chosen to ensue a barrage of harassment with numerous threatening letters referring to a ‘debt recovery’ that in the Defendants opinion has never existed. It is the Defendants opinion that the Claimant hoped that these threats would be enough to extort payment from the Defendant through fear rather than by actual lawful means.
 
5.   The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the alleged 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, section 9:5 states ‘The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’. The alleged parking breach took place on XX/10/19 but the Claimant issued a ‘Notice to Keeper’ on the XX/11/19 well over the required 14 days to issue a notice to keeper and therefore the ‘keeper liability’ cannot be used.
(NOTE, it was 40 days after parking event - not included in defence text btw)
6.   The signage in the car park is of a ‘forbidding’ nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms and conditions cannot apply to vehicles without a permit as the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are therefore forbidding and thus there could never have been a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. The Defendant refers you to the following case law:
(i) PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016],
(ii) UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016],
(iii) Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016],
where in all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would therefore be a matter for the landowner i.e. not the Claimant.

7. ....................as template

So I've searched through a lot of CEL defences for the last year and looked at the POFA  link to try and improve para 5. I hope this is better and makes sense. The other peices of advice should be completed so must be this that is the last to sort out. I do have a while longer but the combination of work and 12month old (who keeps getting and giving us colds!!) means I'd like to wrap it up asap to be sure I can print/scan on time.

Redx

No need to print , design and scan , append a digital signature to your final pdf , then email it , nobody is printing and scanning any more

Shadowfax1000

Redx said:

No need to print , design and scan , append a digital signature to your final pdf , then email it , nobody is printing and scanning any more

Ah right, I wasn't sure if that was a preferred method.
So I can just drop the signiture into Word then and print as pdf? That's the way I'd normally do it. I just want to get all this detail right, no little slip ups.

Coupon-mad

Yes.  And that defence looks very good to add to the template and get it emailed off.

1505grandad

Para 2  -  "....incident was on an unremarked day to the Defendant.."  -  should be "unremarkable" as per Le_Kirk's post 13th May

Shadowfax1000

Coupon-mad said:

Yes.  And that defence looks very good to add to the template and get it emailed off.

That's a relief, incredible!1505grandad said:

Para 2  -  "....incident was on an unremarked day to the Defendant.."  -  should be "unremarkable" as per Le_Kirk's post 13th May

Ah yes, really good proof reading cheers