Help with defence - CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD

fridge_raider21

Hi, 

Any help with the following would be much appreciated. 

I have received a claim form from Civil Enforcement LTD for a parking charge dated 02/09/21. The total amount is £279.74 (£194.74 claimed, £35 court fee, £50 legal representatives fee)

My wife was driving and I was not present. She can't remember much but has visited the place fairly regularly whilst caring for her mother (her mum will have been there on the day but has now passed away). It's Marshall's Yard in Gainsborough, and from their website, it appears to be 50p for 2 hours, and £1 for 4 hours. Civil Enforcement Ltd have provided little details so I don't know if they're claiming an overstay or complete lack of payment. 

I have acknowledged the receipt on moneyclaim, and I have drafted the following defence (the rest of the points from the template are included, but omitted from here). I honestly don't know what else I can put, can anyone please advise?  

issue and claim also below - 

A claim was issued against you on 29/06/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 12/07/2023 at 10:03:47

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 12/07/2023 at 12:05:07

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

My name                        

 (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. 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. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver. The driver was the defendant’s wife, Claudia Goodwin. The defendant was not present at the time. 

3. The Defendant was not present at the time of the parking event. The Defendant has spoken to his wife, Claudia Goodwin, who was the driver and was visiting Marshall’s Yard with her mother. 

The Defendant’s wife took her mother shopping at Marshall’s Yard in Gainsborough, parking within the designated car park. The Defendant’s wife has little recollection of the day in question due to the amount of time that has passed. She can remember taking her mother shopping, and that additional time would have been likely to have been required to get back to the car and exit the car park as her mother was ill with cancer at the time. 

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 can......... etc etc etc

KeithP

fridge_raider21 said:

A claim was issued against you on 29/06/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 12/07/2023 at 10:03:47

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 12/07/2023 at 12:05:07

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 1st August 2023 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave the preparation of it to the last minute. However, you should leave the filing of it as late as possible.

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'.

To avoid the discontinuance of this Claim and the raising of another one with a different Defendant which stands a better chance of succeeding, I suggest your paragraph 2 be reduced to...

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver. The defendant was not present at the time.

And of course the second sentence of para 3 should start...
The Defendant has spoken to the driver, who...

In fact, everywhere you have identified the driver, you should change that text to the driver.

There is absolutely no need to identify the driver. Why are you so determined to do that?

fridge_raider21

Thanks, I'm not determined to name the driver - I just thought by this stage I may as well do. 

I can amend the text to remove the relationship etc and just state driver, but I don't know what else to add. I obviously have my own thoughts on the charge vs parking fee etc, but I understood that my defence should focus on the facts of the situation, of which I have very little. 

I have produced a defence for an earlier claim some time ago, but that was one where I had full recollection of events.  This is basically all the information I have. 

Coupon-mad

I suggest the keeper Defendant uses the defence by @Johny86 because it has a useful extra paragraph section 4-11 that they should include. Be confident. Your defence will be strong.

And did you notice that KeithP advised: don't do it early?

Tuesday 1st August 2023 to file your Defence. That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave the preparation of it to the last minute. However, you should leave the filing of it as late as possible.

There is now good reason to delay defence submission till close to/at your deadline (as long as you've done the AOS), Sorry if it might look conflicting with the usual advice "not to leave it till the last minute"!

It's because we are now in July and something big is coming.

Things are changing quickly this Summer and as you are now so close to the Government (DLUHC)'s private parking Code of Practice Announcement I would PREPARE the defence but hold off emailing it, wait and see (and of course diarise an alert for the date so you don't actually miss your deadline).

Your timing is perfect if the DLUHC in their Draft Impact Assessment (due any day/week now) give us all some damning words to add!

fridge_raider21

I have produced the following - all the additional points are after the ellipsis (the ones listed in the template). There are 35 points to this now, most of which I don't understand...I feel like I'm including things that, if I am asked about, won't really know what to reply. Comfortable with everything before point 13. Any advice on the below before I post it? Thanks

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. 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. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver, and liability is denied.

3. The Defendant was not present at the time of the parking event. The Defendant has spoken to the driver, who visited Marshall’s Yard with her mother. The driver was a genuine customer of the stores there, and remained on the site throughout the visit. 

The driver has little recollection of the day in question due to the amount of time that has passed. She can remember taking her mother shopping, and that additional time would have been likely to have been required to get back to the car and exit the car park as her mother was ill with cancer at the time. 

4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle.

5. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.

6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.

7. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum.

8 The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 

9. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'" 

10. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 

11.  In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out. 

12. 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 an

Le_Kirk

You don't need to deny liability twice in paragraph 1# and 2# so remove it from the tail end of para 2#.  Para 3 and the unnumbered paragraph following contains too much information for a defence, retain the story (narrative) for the witness statement.  Keep it short and punchy.

Coupon-mad

I edited the Template Defence overnight.  I did advise you to wait!

fridge_raider21

Coupon-mad said:

I exited the Template Defence overnight.  I did advise you to wait!

Well, I waited quite a long time given that the deadline is tomorrow and I am in meetings all day. 

fridge_raider21

Will just have to hope that the old one suffices... 

Coupon-mad

fridge_raider21 said:

Will just have to hope that the old one suffices... 

it will!  Plenty of stages yet, as the NEWBIES thread explains.

See my post today (just now) on the Template Defence thread that shows how you might bring the new points from the DLUHC into your Witness Statement later.

Well, I waited quite a long time given that the deadline is tomorrow and I am in meetings all day. 

I know you did.  I get it.

But FWIW, I didn't hang around!  The DLUHC's 90 page IA and covering bumf and additional 'call for evidence' was published yesterday and I then read, digested and factored what I could glean from it into the Template Defence overnight (in my own time, as fast as I could think & type on no sleep!).