Civil Enforcement Ltd claim form from back in summer of 2023

Coupon-mad

A new paragraph after that one would flow well.  But is my suggested wording in fact true in your case "I saw no parking signs"?

That entrance sign is clear...

womble94

Coupon-mad said:

A new paragraph after that one would flow well.  But is my suggested wording in fact true in your case "I saw no parking signs"?

That entrance sign is clear...

I've taken out para 7 which stated: 

7. The particulars of claim is insufficient, that even the location of where the (unidentified) alleged breach occurred is not identified!  'Bellevue' means nothing to the average person. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the I am the registered keeper and driver.

As I'm going to reference a picture of where the location is, this would be contradictory.

I've also amended the wording as you mentioned. The facts now read:

Facts and sequence of events

 

7. On the date of the alleged parking event, I stopped to buy some food shopping. I ensured that my vehicle was parked for the shortest duration necessary to complete this task.

 

8. Due to the lack of signs/copy of the alleged contract, woefully inadequate pleaded case and the age of the alleged breach, which is over two years ago, I am unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN. I don't even know what it is that I am accused of and this claim is surely not compliant with Part 16 and is a serial abuse of the MCOL system, as held by HHJ Murch at Luton Court (and more recently confirmed in another similar appeal judgment at Manchester Court, by Her Honour Judge Evans in Car Park Management Services v Akande) (See Exhibit 01). 

 

9. The parking sign I saw was not clear and I certainly did not agree to pay £100.  Let alone the inflated sum of £170 which is unexplained and cannot have been the PCN sum. Any such terms or penalty warnings were either not there, not prominently displayed and/or buried on some unintelligible sign in minuscule text, incapable of binding a driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their alleged contract, if the case is not struck out due to the Chan appeal case which was about the exact same POC and same Claimant.

 

10. Faded parking sign: I would like to draw the attention to the poor condition of the sign, where the Terms & Conditions section has faded and lost all meaning. (See Exhibit 02)

 

11. There is a further matter negating any cause of action, namely a likely defective Notice to Keeper (NTK) and incorrect 'payment due date' in the POC.  This point relies on Schedule 4 paragraph 8 or 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) and the Defendant will raise various issues, including probable non-compliant NTK wording and an apparently incorrect statement in the POC regarding what appears to be the alleged date of keeper liability ('payment due date - 30th June 2022').  This has the object or effect of these pleadings attempting to allege keeper liability wrongfully, and/or earlier than the law would allow, even for a case with a compliant NTK. The Claimant's POC has unreasonably shortened the statutory 28 day period by several days or even weeks, which has had the additional unreasonable effect of backdating interest incorrectly.  Even if posted 1st class on Weds 1st June 2022 (the same day as the alleged event, which it cannot have been) a NTK would be deemed served on Tuesday 7th June 2022 as there were bank holidays on the 2nd & 3rd of June.  Adding the POFA's statutory 28 days starting with the day after service of the NTK, the soonest that the 'right to recover from the keeper' might exist would have been six days later than this Claimant states in their POC.  In fact, it would have been even later in July 2022 because it would have been impossible for a postal NTK (which I do not hold - the Claimant is put to strict proof) to have been dated/posted the same day as the parking event. Further, the generic POC omits whether or not a windscreen PCN was served first; a vital detail which affects liability dates by at least a month and would have clarified whether the Claimant seeks to rely on POFA paragraph 8 or paragraph 9.  I, (and court) is reduced to guesswork.

 

12. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(ii). 'Adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

13. I, deny (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Coupon-mad

Not "The parking sign I saw".

If you saw a sign you'd have found the machine and paid to park, surely?

womble94

I did pay for parking but I from what I recall, I paid for one hour and overran about 20mins. Shall I still take out that I saw the parking sign still?

Coupon-mad

womble94 said:

I did pay for parking ... from what I recall. 

Why is this not in your WS?

womble94

Coupon-mad said:

womble94 said:

I did pay for parking ... from what I recall. 

Why is this not in your WS?

I was going to put that I’d paid for an hours parking but then thought they’d counter it and say “you stayed for longer than an hour” and then I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on right?

Coupon-mad

No. These are basic facts. You MUST be open and an honest witness.

Clearly you have to state that you paid for your parking, in your WS!  Don't specify an hour. That's for them to do.

And 'put them to strict proof' that your parking time was not paid for.  State that any minutes on arrival and upon leaving do not count and fell within reasonable grace periods.  Even if the Judge is not persuaded by that, it is a fact that the signs were so faded that anything about a £100 risk was illegible anyway. No contract formed to pay £100 parking charge.

womble94

Coupon-mad said:

No. These are basic facts. You MUST be open and an honest witness.

Clearly you have to state that you paid for your parking, in your WS!  Don't specify an hour. That's for them to do.

And 'put them to strict proof' that your parking time was not paid for.  State that any minutes on arrival and upon leaving do not count and fell within reasonable grace periods.  Even if the Judge is not persuaded by that, it is a fact that the signs were so faded that anything about a £100 risk was illegible anyway. No contract formed to pay £100 parking charge.

ok noted.

I've added this into my para 7:

7. On the date of the alleged parking event, I stopped to buy some food shopping and paid for parking. I ensured that my vehicle was parked for the shortest duration necessary to complete this task.

Coupon-mad

OK - a start - but I gave you more than that to say.

womble94

Amended

7. On the date of the alleged parking event, I stopped to buy some food shopping. I ensured that my vehicle was parked for the shortest duration necessary to complete this task. I paid for parking, any minutes on arrival and upon leaving do not count and fell within reasonable grace periods.