Urgent Help: Civil enforcement LTD county court claim for charge 5 years ago 29 December 2022 at 3:49PM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 28 replies 473 views

tony150

Thanks @Mouse007.

I've had a go at the defence per the below, let me know if you have any further suggestions:

"

3. The defendant was not aware of any claims or alleged breach of terms and conditions (T&C’s) and is shocked when he received this claim form on the XX December 2022 to an alleged event being claimed for dating back to XX August 2017.

No prior correspondence was sent by the claimant ( Civil Enforcement Limited) or their client  (private carparking operator). The Defendant did not receive a ‘letter before action’ and learned for the first time that a claim is being made on the 28th December 2022 when the claim form arrived. No further data, images or facts have been supplied to the defendant for this claim.

In addition, the defendant did not visit the “Central Manchester Hospital” on the 7th August 2017 as outlined in the Particulars of Claim ('POC'), and in fact, does not recall visiting any hospital on that date and time.

The POC claims that the vehicle registered to the defendant entered the “Central Manchester Carpark” at “00:00” and left at “23.59” on the same day. As stated, the defendant did not visit the “Central Manchester Hospital”, however when studying the times outlined, it indicates towards an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) camera being used in the alleged carpark as a car parking operator personnel physically cannot monitor for 23 hours and 59 minutes. To that end, it is possible that a system ‘glitch’ occurred as it runs the full 23 hours and 59 minutes suggesting the defendant entered and left the carpark at those exact times which is possible but highly unlikely.

Lastly, the defendant has researched parking facilities for hospitals in central Manchester using the online NHS website and found that 8 carparks were operating since 2009, the claimant has not identified in which car park this alleged breach of T&Cs took place.

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 (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, 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 do not state what Term (s) or Conditions (s) (T&Cs) were breached and no copy of the T&Cs have been provided and thus makes the POC sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated. The Defendant is unable to respond to a claim relating to an unremarkable day that goes back nearly 5 and a half years. The Defendant does not recall visiting a hospital car park in Manchester at midnight and staying there for 24 hours on any day, let along on the day stated on the claim. The POC states timings of “Time in: 00:00 Time out: 23:59”, no hospital appointments commence at the hours alleged and the Defendant would recall an emergency rush into hospital at that hour. In addition, the alleged parking is stated as “Central Manchester Hospital” and should the Defendant rush into a hospital during those early hours of the morning it would be the closer hospital which is circa 1 mile of the defendants residence (Oldham) as opposed to that defined in the POC

"

Also not sure on whether the items added into 5 should go into 2 instead?

What are your thoughts on para 4 of point 3 - Itkind of suggests that I was driving or at fault (to which I am not!) but I'm trying to make a point here on the fact that the carpark is automated and it's highly unlikely the vehicle entered/left at those exact timings (00:00 to 23:59).

Cheers

Coupon-mad

Typo: let along 

tony150

AoS now filed - going to tweak defence based on feedback from here (thanks for spotting typo @Coupon-mad).

I'll need to also familiarise myself with what happens after defence is sent.

Cheers for help thus far!

tony150

I'll be filling defence over the next day - is there anything further you would add?

@Coupon-mad
@Mouse007

Cheers

Coupon-mad

Show us the latest draft fully paragraph numbered.

Mouse007

and please include paragraph 2

tony150

see below for the latest draft with paragraph numbered @Coupon-mad @Mouse007

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The defendant did not visit the hospital during the date and times alleged and does not recall allowing another driver use of their vehicle.

3. The defendant was not aware of any claims or alleged breach of terms and conditions (T&C’s) and is shocked when he received this claim form on the 19th December 2022 to an alleged event being claimed for dating back to 7th August 2017.

No prior correspondence was sent by the claimant (Civil Enforcement Limited) or their client  (private carparking operator). The Defendant did not receive a ‘Letter Before Action’ and had only learnt for the very first time that a claim is being made on the 28th December 2022 when the rather vague claim form arrived. No further data, images or facts have been supplied to the defendant for this claim.

In addition, the defendant did not visit the “Central Manchester Hospital” on the 7th August 2017 as outlined in the Particulars of Claim ('POC'), and in fact, does not recall visiting any hospital on that date and time.

The POC claims that the vehicle registered to the defendant entered the “Central Manchester Carpark” at “00:00” and left at “23.59” on the same day. As stated, the defendant did not visit the “Central Manchester Hospital”, however when studying the times outlined, it indicates towards an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) camera being used in the alleged carpark as a car parking operator personnel physically cannot monitor for 23 hours and 59 minutes. To that end, it is possible that a system ‘glitch’ occurred as it runs the full 23 hours and 59 minutes suggesting the defendant entered and left the carpark at those exact times which is possible but highly unlikely.

Lastly, the defendant has researched parking facilities for hospitals in central Manchester using the online NHS website and found that 8 carparks were operating since 2009, the claimant has not identified in which car park this alleged breach of T&Cs took place.

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 (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, 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 do not state what Term (s) or Conditions (s) (T&Cs) were breached and no copy of the T&Cs have been provided and thus makes the POC sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated. The Defendant is unable to respond to a claim relating to an unremarkable day that goes back nearly 5 and a half years. The Defendant does not recall visiting a hospital car park in Manchester at midnight and staying there for 24 hours on any day, let alone on the day stated on the claim. The POC states timings of “Time in: 00:00 Time out: 23:59”, no hospital appointments commence at the hours alleged and the Defendant would recall an emergency rush into hospital at that hour. In addition, the alleged parking is stated as “Central Manchester Hospital” and should the Defendant rush into a hospital during those early hours of the morning it would be the closer hospital which is circa 1 mile of the defendants residence (Oldham) as opposed to that defined in the POC.

Coupon-mad

I said this for a good reason:

"fully paragraph numbered."

Mouse007

tony150 said:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The defendant did not visit the hospital during the date and times alleged and does not recall allowing another driver use of their vehicle.

3. The defendant was not aware of any claims or alleged breach of terms and conditions (T&C’s) and is shocked when he received this claim form on the 19th December 2022 to an alleged event being claimed for dating back to 7th August 2017.

4. No prior correspondence was sent by the claimant (Civil Enforcement Limited) or their client  (private carparking operator). The Defendant did not receive a ‘Letter Before Action’ and had only learnt for the very first time that a claim is being made on the 28th December 2022 when the rather vague claim form arrived. No further data, images or facts have been supplied to the defendant for this claim.

5. In addition, the defendant did not visit the “Central Manchester Hospital” on the 7th August 2017 as outlined in the Particulars of Claim ('POC'), and in fact, does not recall visiting any hospital on that date and time.

6. The POC claims that the vehicle registered to the defendant entered the “Central Manchester Carpark” at “00:00” and left at “23.59” on the same day. As stated, the defendant did not visit the “Central Manchester Hospital”, however when studying the times outlined, it indicates towards an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) camera being used in the alleged carpark as a car parking operator personnel physically cannot monitor for 23 hours and 59 minutes. To that end, it is possible that a system ‘glitch’ occurred as it runs the full 23 hours and 59 minutes suggesting the defendant entered and left the carpark at those exact times which is possible but highly unlikely.

7. Lastly, the defendant has researched parking facilities for hospitals in central Manchester using the online NHS website and found that 8 carparks were operating since 2009, the claimant has not identified in which car park this alleged breach of T&Cs took place.

8. 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 (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

9. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, 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 do not state what Term (s) or Conditions (s) (T&Cs) were breached and no copy of the T&Cs have been provided and thus makes the POC sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated. The Defendant is unable to respond to a claim relating to an unremarkable day that goes back nearly 5 and a half years. The Defendant does not recall visiting a hospital car park in Manchester at midnight and staying there for 24 hours on any day, let alone on the day stated on the claim. The POC states timings of “Time in: 00:00 Time out: 23:59”, no hospital appointments commence at the hours alleged and the Defendant would recall an emergency rush into hospital at that hour. In addition, the alleged parking is stated as “Central Manchester Hospital” and should the Defendant rush into a hospital during those early hours of the morning it would be the closer hospital which is circa 1 mile of the defendants residence (Oldham) as opposed to that defined in the POC.

Number each paragraph and leave the crossed out bits for your Witness Statement

Le_Kirk

tony150 said:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The defendant did not visit the hospital  on the date and during the times alleged and does not recall allowing another driver use of their vehicle.

3. The defendant was not aware of any claims or alleged breach of terms and conditions (T&C’s) and is was shocked when he received this claim form on the 19th December 2022 to an alleged event being claimed for dating back to 7th August 2017.

4.  No prior .................

5.  In addition, ....................

6.  The POC claims ...................

7.  Lastly,.......................

4. 8.  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 (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

5. 9.  With r...............

Every paragraph requires a number plus some suggestions above.