Claim Form - Civil Enforcement Ltd - Defence

moneyman_365

Thank you for all your help. I have added the changes suggest. My final draft which I plan to submit the next few days is as per below. Is this ok?

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. 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.

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

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 without accepting any contract.

moneyman_365

Thank you for all your help.
This is final draft with all chnages which I will submit by Friday.

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 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 without accepting any contract.

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. 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.

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.  

KeithP

Your paragraph 5 should start...
5. The British Parking Association's Code of Practice states...

Coupon-mad

Apart from that, looks good!

moneyman_365

Thank you all for your help. I have updated the points suggested. Final version which I will submit later today is:

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 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 without accepting any contract.

5. The British Parking Association's Code of Practice states 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. 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.

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.  

6.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite indisputably knowing that this is now banned.  It seems they have also calculated 8% interest on that false sum. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied).  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that admin costs inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

7. This finding is underpinned by Government intervention and regulation.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

8. Adding costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a very short section called 'Escalation of costs' the new statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued." 

9. The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

KeithP

moneyman_365 said:

Final version which I will submit later today...

The usual suggestion here is to send the email during working hours.
Over the past year or so we have seen the CCBC apparently lose Defences filed overnight/weekend.
Ensure you get an automatic email acknowledgement and you will be ok.

moneyman_365

Hi Keith,

Thanks for the tip. I will email it before the daily 4pm deadline.

Le_Kirk

One assumes you are adding your section of defence to the rest of the template before you send it?

moneyman_365

Yes I am sending the whole template and notes on here were only the main points.