CEL Parking without Permit, 2018

Soppytwat

Hi All,

I have received a County Court Claim dated 24th March 2022 for (allegedly) parking in a private 'Permit Only' car park in Southampton managed by CEL on a Monday in 2018. I have submitted an AoS. I inadvertently threw away the documentation 6 months ago. I have not received a LBA and have no actual evidence. I was Registered Keeper of the vehicle but not sole driver. However the internet has provided me with blurry evidence of the signs in place at the time (they have since changed to normal public 'by the hour' commercial parking). The premises (a strip club!) ceased trading months before I used the car park but the signage was changed afterwards. The signs at the time were clearly 'PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY' during specified hours  Monday - Friday and 'PHONE AND PAY' during specified hours Saturday - Sunday. The car park was empty and clearly not in use by tenants of the building it serviced. Below is my 1st attempt at manipulating the template. I should be very grateful for any pointers/advice on this matter. As a newbie, I hope I have followed the rules properly. Many thanks in anticipation.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Civil Enforcement Ltd

- and -  

Defendant’s name from N1 claim

Soppytwat

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or 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 on the date of the alleged incident (Monday, 10th September, 2018) but liability is denied. 

 

3 The Defendant has no recollection of having ever parked at, or having been to, a “Playhouse Gentlemans Club” as stated in Particulars of Claim.

4. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXX, of which that while the Defendant is the registered keeper more than one person is authorised to drive the vehicle. It is impossible to be certain 42 months later, which driver allegedly parked the car that day, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of a single parking event by an identified driver. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, but the driver has not been identified and any 'violation' or 'breach of terms' is denied.

5. The POC of the Claimant refers to “Playhouse Gentlemans Club” (sic) as the location of the Car Park. This may or may not refer to “Playhouse Gentlemen’s Club”, Harbour House, Southampton, for the purposes of this claim, this is assumed but not admitted or confirmed. Internet research on “Playhouse Gentlemen’s Club”, Harbour House, Southampton, suggests that:

a)      The club was closed on Mondays, and;

 

b)      The club was not trading during this period.

 

c)      The club car park had signs stating that the car park is “PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY” during specified hours Monday – Friday, as such there would have been no commercial justification and no legitimate interest to support a punitive charge which in fact seems to be an attempt to twist the landowner's right to damages for any act of trespass and dress it up as if it was a contractually agreed fee.

 

d)     Furthermore, and in contrast, the parking sign goes on to state that parking is “PHONE AND PAY” during specified hours Saturday – Sunday at a charge of £1 per hour or £5 per day, and is a clear contractual offer.

 

6. It seems to the Defendant that the fact of the Claimant, a very experienced commercial organisation, entering into a legal claim so long after the event is not a matter of forgetfulness, but a clear tactic to limit the ability of the Defendant to defend the action due to the effects of time, eg clear memories, access to site evidence eg signage, etc.

7. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source.  The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. This Defendant signed it after full research and having read this defence several times, because the court process is outside of their life experience.  The claim was an unexpected shock.

 

8. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes that, after researching other parking cases, the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a generic and incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) was served with a Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation, making it difficult to respond in depth at this time. No Letter Before Action was received which may have helped in this regard, in brief, no supporting evidence has been offered beyond the POC

9.  The claimant is apparently saying that the claim is bought for breach of contract, from the Defendant failing to comply with the terms and conditions displayed in the Car Park. The Claimant appears to be claiming that drivers are permitted to park in the car park in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on signage and these signs constitute an offer by the claimant to enter into a contract with the drivers. However, the Claimant appears to be saying that the signs in the car park state the following, or something similar: ‘Permit holders only – if you park without obtaining a valid permit, you agree to pay £100. Additional costs will be incurred if payment is not made within 28 days’ The Claimants signage with the largest font at this site states “PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY”. It is submitted that if this notice is attempting to make a contractual offer, then the Defendant would suggest the sign is a forbidding sign and is only making an offer of parking to permit holders only. If a driver is not authorised to park in the car park due to it being permit holders only then he cannot be offered a contract. The only claim would be for trespass which only the landowner can claim, and only for a nominal sum.

 

Remainder all as per latest template

KeithP

Soppytwat said:

I have received a County Court Claim dated 24th March 2022...
I have submitted an AoS.

Hello and welcome.

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Fruitcake

That's too long and not precise enough. Much of it is irrelevant.

Have you sent an SAR to obtain a copy of the original PCN/NTK? 

If you know for certain that you were not driving, you should say so in para 2. Alternatively say, keeper, but driver is not know, and liability is denied.

The POC should state the location of the alleged event, and should match the relevant land detailed on the NTK. If no address/post code has been included on the POC, then it could have happened anywhere. Don't go suggesting where it might have happened and tipping them off by giving them the opportunity to amend the POC.

Paras 3, 4, and 5 can be combined and condensed to include comments about vague imprecise location.

Inadequate signage is already covered in the template. Remove sub paras a - d. Anything relevant can be included later at the WS/exhibits stage.

I would remove 6 - 9 as well.

Coupon-mad

Luckily for you, if your local court is Southampton, they eat parking firms for dinner!

Soppytwat

Hi All, thanks for your responses.

AOL received by MCOL 4th April 2022.

SAR sent, closing date for info 5th May 2022, ie too late.

Is the following better? Thanks in advance.

Also I shall be out of the country from early May to mid July. Is anything likely to happen while I am away? How long before a Directions Questionnaire is sent out? I will be contactable by email but not by mail and will have access to internet.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Civil Enforcement Ltd

- and -  

Defendant’s name from N1 claim

Soppytwat

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare license as managers) has standing to sue or 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 on the date of the alleged incident (Monday, 10th September, 2018) but driver is unknown and liability is denied. 

3 The Defendant has no recollection of ever having parked at, or having been to, a “Playhouse Gentlemans Club”, as stated in Particulars of Claim.

4. The Particulars of Claim are sparse and provide no information regarding the alleged contract, or breach, or what the terms on signage actually said on the material date, or what the alleged breach was, or why/how the Claimant purports that the registered keeper is liable, given the facts that this Claimant has failed to evidence the identity of the driver and they do not conform to the keeper liability provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the 'POFA').

Soppytwat

Hi All - another question: is it appropriate to send in a completed N180 before I receive one from court?

Thanks in advance

KeithP

Soppytwat said:

I have received a County Court Claim dated 24th March 2022.

Soppytwat said:

AOL received by MCOL 4th April 2022.

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 26th April 2022 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

KeithP

Soppytwat said:

Hi All - another question: is it appropriate to send in a completed N180 before I receive one from court?

Thanks in advance

It is often suggested here that you should not return a completed DQ before the CCBC has sent a blank form to you.
That is likely to be at least a month or so after your Defence is filed.
Your MCOL Claim History will tell you when that happens.

The CCBC will send you a hard copy DQ to complete but you can file and serve an electronic copy by continuing to follow the guidance in the opening post on the Defence template thread.

Coupon-mad

Soppytwat said:

Hi All - another question: is it appropriate to send in a completed N180 before I receive one from court?

Thanks in advance

I would, in your case!

Add at least a week to your planned July return because you don't want to come back to a very pressing urgent deadline.

If it was me, I'd download the N180 DQ in ten days time, before you go, and cross out the whole of May, June and July as working abroad/travelling.

Email it to the CCBC and CEL and make sure someone at home is opening your post at least once a week!  They can send you a photo of any court letter.

You are otherwise at risk of missing a deadline which could lead to a default judgment against you.  Not worth that risk!

Your defence looks fine but left me wondering 'did you get no PCN or letters then?  It reads as though you know nothing about the allegation but you haven't stated whether you didn't receive anything till the claim, or ignored their alarmist demands because it appeared to be a scam and not a charge you would be liable for, having never visited the location.

You could also add that the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with the POFA 2012, schedule 4, in terms of the documents served, timelines, evidence of relevant obligation or contract, and of prominent signage, giving adequate notice to the driver of the parking charge.

Soppytwat

Hi Coupon-Mad,

Great advice thank you.

I received loads of intimidating crap almost weekly but it went quiet for over a year so I assumed it was over. Duh.

Many thanks to all respondents, fingers crossed X

Coupon-mad

You know all the other steps to take?  You need someone opening your post as defence is not your only job.