Claim Form - Civil Enforcement Ltd - Defence

moneyman_365

Hi All,

I received a Claim Form from Civil Enforcement Ltd for a PCN dates from 201 for staying in a car park 11 minutes as per ANPR entry exit time on PCN.
Please can you advise me on a good defence for this claim that will help? I am currently working on the defence template.

Claim Details:

Issue Date = 11/04/2022
AOS Submitted = 22/04/2022
Defence = In Progress

Amount Claimed = 217.06
Court Fee = 35.00
Legal Rep = 50
Total 302.06

Particulars of Claim(from form)

Claim for money related to a Parking Charge for breach of contract terms/conditions (TCs) for parking in a private car park (CP_ managed by Claimant.
Drivers may only park pursuant to TC's of use displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/parking. APNR cameras or manual patrols monitor vehicles entering/exiting the  CP and TC breaches.
 Charges of GBP 182.00 claimed.
Violation date: xx\xx\2019
Time IN: 16:42
Time Out: 16:53
Bellvue Car Park

Total Due - GBP 182.00
The claimant claims the sum of 217.06 for the uppaid parking charges inc GBP 35.06 interest under S.69 of the CCA 1984.
Rate 8.00% from due date 08/04/22

Same rate to judgement or sooner payment of daily rate of GBP 0.04.

Total debt and interest due GBP 217.06.

KeithP

moneyman_365 said:

Claim Details:
Issue Date = 11/04/2022
AOS Submitted = 22/04/2022

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 16th May 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

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'.

Le_Kirk

moneyman_365 said:

Please can you advise me on a good defence for this claim that will help? I am currently working on the defence template.

Why were you late?  That will be your best defence.  Was there a hold up in the retail outlet (shop) due to an incident of some sort, were lots of people all trying to pay at once for example, was there queue to exit the car park due to a blockage or an accident (none of which is under the control of the PPC?.  Is it a poorly arranged car park (which comes under the control of the PPC) such that queues always happen?

Coupon-mad

Remember as well, of course, that the 'in' and 'out' ANPR cameras are not synchronised for time and that the BPA CoP allowed a flexible (unspecified) consideration period in 2019, to allow drivers time to read signs and decide whether to stay or go.

They also have a mandatory 10 minutes grace as well.  As such, your defence should be denying the car was there for over ten minutes and putting the Claimant to strict proof of what the landowner's stated grace period actually was AND that the ANPR cameras were calibrated so the times were synched to the minute, because cases have shown they are usually not set so exactly as to be able to pinpoint 'in and out' times correctly.  The evidence is also very dependant upon the choice of position of the cameras away from the parking area whether cars have to queue to rejoin the main road, which in itself typically adds two minutes at least.

D_P_Dance

They are claiming an unlawful amount for debt collection. 

Read this and complain to your MP.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs-edited-march-2022/p1

moneyman_365

HI I stopped briefly at the car park as I was having a bit of an incident and hence stopped briefly. I did believe at the time I was within the grace period but of course their cameras are stating 11m.I will add the comments everyone suggested in my defence and add to the post shortly.

moneyman_365

This is my defence so far. Please comment on if there needs to be any further changes.

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 but liability is denied. 

 

3. At the time of the event, I entered the car park as I was having a slight anxiety attack and so I parked up safely to calm myself down. After a few minutes I exited the car park I was only in the car park for a few minutes and definitely within the grace period of 10m as I checked the time on my car and phone which showed I had exited at 16:50. I also did not have any change to pay to stay extra than the grace time which also affected my decision to leave the car park. BPA CoP allowed a flexible (unspecified) consideration period in 2019, to allow drivers time to read signs and decide whether to stay or go.

4 .I believe the claimants ANPR camera may not have been synchronized or calibrated with the actual real time during the time of the incident as the exit time does not match what happened in reality.

5 .Also the time from the car park spot to the exit barrier can also add unnecessary time to the clock which should also be considered.

6. 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 (ironically template) 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.

Coupon-mad

Why haven't you added what the template says to add 'and driver' to point 2?

Point 3 must be written the same as the rest - not 'me or I' but 'the Defendant'.

moneyman_365

sorry that was a mis sight on my first draft. Will correct and add to the post shortly. Thank you for the tips.

moneyman_365

Correction:

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 and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

 

3.   At the time of the event the Defendant entered the car park as the Defendant was having a slight anxiety attack and had parked up safely to calm down. After a few minutes the Defendant exited the car park and was only in the car park for a few minutes and definitely within the grace period of 10 minutes as the Defendant checked the time on the car clock and phone which showed the Defendant had exited at 16:50.

4, The Defendant did not have any cash or card to pay to stay longer than the grace time which also affected the Defendants decision to leave the car park.

5. BPA CoP allowed a flexible (unspecified) consideration period in 2019, to allow drivers time to read signs and decide whether to stay or go.

6. The Defendant believes the claimants ANPR camera may not have been synchronized or calibrated with the actual real time during the time of the incident as the exit time does not match what happened in reality.

7.The time from the car park spot to the exit barrier can also add unnecessary time to the clock which should also be considered by the Claimant. 

8. 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 (ironically template) 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.

9. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking cases, that 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.  

Coupon-mad

Add to #6

The Claimant is put to strict proof of the synchronisation and calibration of the 'in' and 'out' cameras, which in this industry are known to often be minutes out with each other, generating unfair and unproven parking charges for vehicles that were only stopped for a few minutes, as in this case.