Harassment from Civil Enforcement Limited - Claim from County Court Business Centre

katielo100

Hi everyone, Very pleased to have found this useful forum. I have received a claim form from the County Court Business Centre after a year of disputing threatening letters to my partner (the keeper of our vehicle, I was the driver) from CEL, claiming escalating amounts of money for an alleged PCN which they had previously confirmed as successfully appealed and cancelled. 

I have used this forum's template to compile a defence and I wondered if anyone could help by checking it over. The basics of the story is - I parked in a car park which is manned by CEL and received a PCN for a brief overstay of 19 minutes. I appealed on the basis that my workspace adjacent at which I am a resident, has a claim to several spaces in the car park and I was a permitted visitor. This appeal was accepted and I received a letter confirming the charge had been cancelled (I still have this as evidence) 

I was then surprised to later receive another duplicate PCN for the same alleged offence, at an identical date and time under a different PCN number - I assumed this must be an administrative mistake and I appealed stating that the charge for that alleged overstay had already been cancelled. They then rejected my appeal. I thought there must be some error so I repeatedly sent letters by recorded delivery explaining that my fine had already been cancelled but I received no response. The supposed debt was then passed on to several debt collection agencies all of which I appealed to explaining the situation. I would hear nothing back for some time and then later receive another threatening claim from a different agency. After being passed around the claim is now back with CEL who are now threatening court action through the County Court Business Centre.

This has been extremely stressful and the charge for a nineteen minute overstay has now escalated into the hundreds of pounds. I am planning to appeal via email as per the protocol and planned to use the below defence and template - I wondered if anyone could let me know if this looks ok. I count post it all but will copy and paste the rest of the template into the email to CCBC.

I am terrified of receiving a CCJ against my partner's name (he's the keeper and I was the driver at the time) I wondered if anyone knew what the likely outcome would be if I appeal. 

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. 

Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant) 

- and -  

....

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

 

1.     The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock, as the PCN for the brief overstay on 29th April had been confirmed cancelled by the claimant in writing (evidence attached) 

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 was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. 

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but not the driver of the vehicle in question. The driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence was the defendant’s wife .... 

 

3. 

The defendant’s wife received a PCN notice number..... for a brief nineteen minute overstay in the ...car park dated..... This notice was appealed on the basis that the driver is a resident of the workspace at the location and a permitted visitor at the time. 

The appeal was successful and the defendant received confirmation in writing of cancellation for the charges (evidence attached). Having cancelled the charges the claimant later reissued the cancelled PCN for the identical date and time, under a different claim number. The defendant has made multiple attempts to contact the claimant explaining this, providing evidence that the charge for the alleged overstay had been cancelled. 

The defendant repeatedly requested clarification from CEL in writing for the reissuing of an already cancelled charge and received no response.

The defendant attaches evidence in the form of a copy of the letter confirming that the parking charge dated.... was cancelled and can provide original documents to the court or upon request. 

Despite clearly being cancelled by the claimant as per the letter dated, the claim now contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant is contracted to pay. This is grossly disproportionate for a nineteen minute overstay and S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires the Court to consider the fairness of a contract term and the provision for additional charges falls into examples 6, 10 and 14 of the indicative list of unfair terms in Schedule 2 of that Act. It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum.

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

5.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. 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 unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

**** CONTINUED - THE REST OF THE TEMPLATE ****

KeithP

The second sentence of your paragraph 2 clearly identifies the driver and so does the rest of your post. Why on earth would you do that? That allows the Claimant to start a court claim directly against the driver. Is that what you want?
Back in 2014 you were advised that the parking companies read this forum.


What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Umkomaas

I have received a claim form from the County Court Business Centre after a year of disputing threatening letters to my partner (the keeper of our vehicle, I was the driver) from CEL

The defendant’s wife received a PCN notice number..... for a brief nineteen minute overstay in the ...car park dated....

I'm feeling a bit uneasy as to who is being pursued here - you or your husband? In whose name was PCN #1 issued, and in whose name #2?

Who appealed PCN #1, who appealed PCN #2?  Did CEL issue a POPLA code when rejecting the appeal for PCN #2?  If so, was an appeal made to POPLA?

Please give us the Date of Issue shown on the court claim. Has it been acknowledged, and if so, on what date?

bargepole

The key point here, is that the parking charge was previously successfully appealed, and cancelled by CEL. You need to make sure that CEL's reference number (NOT the claim number) for the one that was cancelled, is the same as the one which is now the subject of the court claim.

If so, you not only have a cast iron defence, you also have a strong case against CEL for a counterclaim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, given that they have spent a year chasing you for a debt you don't owe.

The leading authority on this subject is Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46, and you can read the Judgment here: Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009) (bailii.org)

British Gas settled out of court before it reached a final hearing, for an undisclosed sum, believed to be in the region of £5,000.

Coupon-mad

Could it be the keeper named the driver and so the PCN was reissued and the claim is against the driver?

Can we check that you do know only the named defendant (the person on the claim form) can defend? You can't change the person now.

Please do answer all @Umkomaas' questions. 

katielo100

Thank you for your responses. I was the driver of the car at the time of the alleged violation, we were unaware of the protocol at the time of appeal and my husband stated that it was myself driving.

My husband is the registered keeper and the individual being pursued by CEL - both of the PCNs were issued to and disputed by my husband. All correspondence from them has been directed to my husband. 

The duplicate PCN for the same supposed violation was issued under a different PCN number from the one that was cancelled - I can't see CEL's reference number on the letter. It was issued again to my husband and not to myself. 

He didn't appeal to POPLA at the time.

My husband received a claim form for the County Court Business Centre dated 14th June, he has not acknowledged this yet. 

I hope this helps. Thank you.

katielo100

Just to clarify my husband will be the person defending rather than me. 

katielo100

We have a letter clearly confirming cancellation of the charge for the same date of incident, and apologising for the inconvenience caused - so he really should have a cast iron defence in court.  

KeithP

katielo100 said:

Thank you for your responses. I was the driver of the car at the time of the alleged violation, we were unaware of the protocol at the time of appeal and my husband stated that it was myself driving.

That is important.

If the keeper gave CEL the name and address of the driver then they no longer have a claim against the keeper.

katielo100 said:

The duplicate PCN for the same supposed violation was issued under a different PCN number from the one that was cancelled - I can't see CEL's reference number on the letter.

Then this claim appears to be nothing to do with the earlier PCN that was cancelled. Is that right?

katielo100

The PCN numbers are different - however the exact time and date of alleged offence are the same and they are both issued to my husband.

They have essentially issued two PCNs for the same alleged violation and accepted an appeal for one. Then reissued it under a different number and rejected the appeal, failing to acknowledge that they had already cancelled it.

katielo100

This claim (which they are escalating to the courts) is for exactly the same time and date as the PCN that was cancelled.