Claim Form defence - Wells next to sea (CEL)

Redx

Gravis said:

Redx said:

It's never too late for a SAR , should have been done a few weeks ago !!

do i do that via their website? they dont seem to publish an email address that i can see

Try their privacy page , where all companies publish data protection information

Gravis

Redx said:

Gravis said:

Redx said:

It's never too late for a SAR , should have been done a few weeks ago !!

do i do that via their website? they dont seem to publish an email address that i can see

Try their privacy page , where all companies publish data protection information

Thanks, found it. I used:

dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk

Redx

Gravis said:

Redx said:

Gravis said:

Redx said:

It's never too late for a SAR , should have been done a few weeks ago !!

do i do that via their website? they dont seem to publish an email address that i can see

Try their privacy page , where all companies publish data protection information

Thanks, found it. I used:

dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk

Yeah , we know , lol. 😜😜😜😜

Gravis

Redx said:

Gravis said:

Redx said:

Gravis said:

Redx said:

It's never too late for a SAR , should have been done a few weeks ago !!

do i do that via their website? they dont seem to publish an email address that i can see

Try their privacy page , where all companies publish data protection information

Thanks, found it. I used:

dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk

Yeah , we know , lol. 😜😜😜😜

Lol… Definitely something to be said for learning by doing. I now know how to find that stuff for myself if I should ever need to.

Any thoughts on my defence? 😁

Redx

Gravis said:

Redx said:

Gravis said:

Redx said:

Gravis said:

Redx said:

It's never too late for a SAR , should have been done a few weeks ago !!

do i do that via their website? they dont seem to publish an email address that i can see

Try their privacy page , where all companies publish data protection information

Thanks, found it. I used:

dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk

Yeah , we know , lol. 😜😜😜😜

Lol… Definitely something to be said for learning by doing. I now know how to find that stuff for myself if I should ever need to.

Any thoughts on my defence? 😁

2 should state keeper and driver , losing the second sentence

Ideally you should have only posted the paragraphs you changed , very few people on here will review a full defence ( I certainly don't , lol )

We typically review about 4 paragraphs

Gravis

Redx said:

Gravis said:

Redx said:

Gravis said:

Redx said:

Gravis said:

Redx said:

It's never too late for a SAR , should have been done a few weeks ago !!

do i do that via their website? they dont seem to publish an email address that i can see

Try their privacy page , where all companies publish data protection information

Thanks, found it. I used:

dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk

Yeah , we know , lol. 😜😜😜😜

Lol… Definitely something to be said for learning by doing. I now know how to find that stuff for myself if I should ever need to.

Any thoughts on my defence? 😁

2 should state keeper and driver , losing the second sentence

Ideally you should have only posted the paragraphs you changed , very few people on here will review a full defence ( I certainly don't , lol )

We typically review about 4 paragraphs

Ah ok thanks I’ll post again with the changes only, will do that tomorrow now. Thanks for prompt replies. 

Redx

Gravis said:

Redx said:

Gravis said:

Redx said:

Gravis said:

Redx said:

Gravis said:

Redx said:

It's never too late for a SAR , should have been done a few weeks ago !!

do i do that via their website? they dont seem to publish an email address that i can see

Try their privacy page , where all companies publish data protection information

Thanks, found it. I used:

dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk

Yeah , we know , lol. 😜😜😜😜

Lol… Definitely something to be said for learning by doing. I now know how to find that stuff for myself if I should ever need to.

Any thoughts on my defence? 😁

2 should state keeper and driver , losing the second sentence

Ideally you should have only posted the paragraphs you changed , very few people on here will review a full defence ( I certainly don't , lol )

We typically review about 4 paragraphs

Ah ok thanks I’ll post again with the changes only, will do that tomorrow now. Thanks for prompt replies. 

Good , it is your homework that needs checking , not coupon mads !!  😁😁

Umkomaas

As the Wells site is under statutory control, there can never be keeper liability, and if (as I suspect) CEL did not issue a PoFA-compliant NtK, you shouldn't reveal the driver's identity (unless you have done so previously in correspondence with them). 

The DJ Grand/Southampton reference should be removed and replaced with Excel v Wilkinson. 

EXCEL v WILKINSON JUDGMENT

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

add some words about Excel v Wilkinson, into the usual point about the added £60.

 e.g. your extra paragraph could say (wording courtesy of @Coupon-mad):

 At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

In addition this link takes you to a further judgment which adds even more weight:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcript-exhibits-re-parking-firms-falsely-added-contractual-costs/p1

Gravis

here’s the amended defence omitting the rest of the template and only showing the parts ive added/amended, please let me know if this sounds ok or if there’s anything I should add/edit/remove. Thanks

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

 

3.       The defendant parked in wells quay car park on 17/07/2020 at approximately 9:30pm as the defendant was looking for a safe place to pull over and find directions to the nearest service station. The vehicles engine management light had alarmed and the temperature gauge was showing signs of engine overheating. The defendant made a couple of phone calls to try and seek advise on how to manage the vehicle malfunction but at no time did the driver exit the vehicle. The driver was was advised to let the vehicle cool down for 20 minutes and then proceed with the journey to the nearest service station where more checks could be made if the problem persisted. With the anxiety of the vehicle problems a quick glimpse to the car park signs on entry were noted by the defendant, the sign stated "£4.50 DAY RATE ONLY". There are no other charges stated on this sign, no implications that the defendant is entering into a contractual agreement, no implications that any fines apply and no implications on the car parks operational hours. Having seen the sign on entry the defendants interpretation is that a flat rate of £4.50 applied during the day time and that charges did not apply at all during the evening. To the defendants knowledge the evening time is generally accepted to be 6pm until 8am the next day and this is in-keeping with the other parking spaces around the area of wells-next-the-sea which are managed by the local council.

4.  The Claimant's sign states that their role is to 'enforce', 'monitor' and 'patrol' and it is clear that their limited function is to facilitate the terms offered by the principal, including 'contact the DVLA' and 'issue PCNs'.  This limited function is confirmed in the Claimant's own Linked In page, where they proclaim 'Civil Enforcement Ltd process and administer Parking Charge Notices (PCN's) on the behalf of UK Small Businesses and Major UK Brands.'

5.  Unlike in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, there is no sentence in the signage that offers or attempts to create a contract between this Claimant and a driver.  A parking management firm could use wording to make themselves personally liable on the contract and they could make a contractual offer themselves by saying 'by parking at this site you, the driver, are entering into a contract with us' (or words to that effect) but there is no such contract on the signs.  In fact, at no point is a driver told that they are entering into any contractual relationship.

6.  'By Order of the Wells Harbour Commissioners' is written at the bottom of the signs where the disputed term about paying after 6pm is stated. Therefore, that term and the licence to park is made by the principal, Wells Harbour Commissioners.  In one image, the Claimant's sign has covered up a larger one that also says 'Order of The Wells Harbour Commissioners' but the words are still just about visible when taken in the context of other images and at the entrance, it is clear that the licence is offered by, and the site maintained by, the Port of Wells Harbour Commissioners, who are the disclosed principal. 

7.  Therefore, unlike in ParkingEye v Beavis, this Claimant has placed their service, and themselves, in the position of an agent/broker/middle-man, making the bargain for another party and collecting monies (the parking fees from the machine) for that party.  The Defendant avers that this Claimant does not retain nor pay VAT on the tariffs and they have no possessory title in this land.  Fatally to their claim, the Claimant made no offer of a contract to the driver, at all.  The Claimant is put to strict proof if their position is to the contrary of that stated by this Defendant, who takes the point that the principles established by the authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169 apply and there is no contractual relationship between this Claimant and the Defendant.

Gravis

Umkomaas said:

As the Wells site is under statutory control, there can never be keeper liability, and if (as I suspect) CEL did not issue a PoFA-compliant NtK, you shouldn't reveal the driver's identity (unless you have done so previously in correspondence with them). 

The DJ Grand/Southampton reference should be removed and replaced with Excel v Wilkinson. 

EXCEL v WILKINSON JUDGMENT

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

add some words about Excel v Wilkinson, into the usual point about the added £60.

 e.g. your extra paragraph could say (wording courtesy of @Coupon-mad):

 At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

In addition this link takes you to a further judgment which adds even more weight:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcript-exhibits-re-parking-firms-falsely-added-contractual-costs/p1

Ah ok thanks, I’ll look into this this evening