Civil Enforcement Ltd LBC Response

Casta198

Good morning,

On the 3/11/2023 I received a LBA / LBC from Civil Enforcement Ltd giving me 30 days to respond before they commence proceedings against me to claim the outstanding 'debt'.

They claim I failed to obtain a permit in accordance with the notified terms. It was in a radio car park located next to a premises I regularly used, it seems they installed ANPR at some point and me nor my friend noticed any signage or change on the day. Annoyingly I lost the first letter which provided no evidence of my vehicle other than my registration plate.

I have ignored rightfully or wrongfully about 7 letters from 4 different companies: Civil Enforcement, DCBL, GCTT and QDR Solicitors up until this letter from Civil Enforcement Legal Team.

I have read the Newbies post several times and digested as much info as I could but as you can appreciate it is quite overwhelming so please forgive me for any obvious errors / mistakes I may have made.

I have emailed the radio station chairman asking them to resolve the issue and I also have drafted a LBC response although I am not sure how good it actually is, I fear I talk about points that may be irrelevant at this stage? 

My main argument is that the signage and lighting is shocking as seen in the image below:

I have scribbled identifying business names out.

I have raised points in the draft mainly to cause inconvenience for example requesting evidence of letters sent etc.. is this advisable? Also there is this post:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71285691#Comment_71285691

Which is a lengthy response to inadequate signage, should I replace my points raised and incorporate this instead?

My LBC draft:

Dear Sirs,

 

Re: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [Redacted]

 

I am writing in response to your letter Before Action dated 31/10/2023, which was received on 3/11/2023.

 

 

I am currently seeking debt advice; however, I categorically deny any indebtedness. Accordingly, I request that the case be placed 'on hold' for a period not less than 30 days in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017.

 

I dispute the assertion that any contractual agreement has been breached and express complete unfamiliarity with the origin of this claim. Consequently, I kindly request that you furnish me with the evidence upon which this claim is predicated.

 

Furthermore, I request further information and clarification regarding the alleged debt. Specifically, I seek a comprehensive breakdown of charges associated with Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 41173062336 and a detailed account of the events leading to the issuance of the PCN. Without such detailed information, I find it challenging to appropriately address the allegations and exercise my rights under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017.

 

In addition to the aforementioned dispute, upon scrutinizing the location of the alleged contractual breach, it has come to my attention that the site under your jurisdiction lacks adequate regulation. The reasons for this observation are as follows:

 

1. The absence of lighting within the car park.

2. Inadequately illuminated signage, rendering it not easily discernible.

3. Signage positioned at a height exceeding approximately 3 meters on the building, well beyond the reach of illumination by vehicle headlights upon entry.

4. Signage present solely on the North elevation of the car park, leaving vehicles facing East, South or West devoid of visible signage.

 

The aforementioned deficiencies clearly contravene the stipulations outlined in the Private Parking Codes of Practice, specifically:

 

‘3.1.6 Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair.

1. For example, in car park premises open to the public in the hours of darkness, lighting of the premises and/or the signs might be necessary depending on the location of the signs to meet the test of prominence in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.’

 

I further dispute the validity of any purported contract in connection with Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 41173062336 on the grounds of inadequate notice. It is my contention that a clear and unequivocal notification of the alleged breach was not provided, thereby denying me the opportunity to rectify any supposed infraction in a timely manner. I assert that the absence of proper notice renders any potential contractual obligations void. I request documentation or evidence demonstrating the provision of adequate notice in accordance with legal requirements.

 

Additionally, I am writing to seek clarification on the legal basis for the charges outlined in your letter Before Action dated 31/10/2023 regarding Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 41173062336. Specifically, I request information demonstrating that the charges represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss suffered by the operator as required by law. It is crucial to establish a clear legal foundation for the charges, and I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

 

Finally, I am concerned about the handling of my personal data in relation to the alleged debt referenced in your letter. I seek clarification on how my personal information has been processed and whether such processing is in compliance with relevant data protection laws. Please provide details on the manner in which my personal data has been handled in connection with this matter, and any measures taken to ensure compliance with data protection regulations.

 

I appreciate your prompt attention to these concerns to address potential issues surrounding this case.

 

Sincerely,

 

[Name and address redacted]

Coupon-mad

You are responding with too much knowledge and asking for too much info.

Far better to ignore the LBC and let CEL file a claim.  Then use the Template Defence including CEL v Chan (go read it now in the link to the hharry100 version!).

Casta198

Good afternoon,

I followed the above advice and they decided to pursue with the claim as expected. The last few weeks have been quite a rollercoaster for myself in my personal life and I came close to caving in and paying just to have one less problem to deal with however I couldn't bear with just letting them get away with their scam. 

As a result I am here with 12 days left to file a defence. The issue date was 18/12/2023, I filed an AoS on the 27/12/2023 which if I am correct gives me until the 20/01/2024 to file a defence however this is a Saturday so I am taking my deadline as the 19/01/2024.

I am preparing my defence but I just want to clarify a couple things:

1. There has been zero communication between myself and the claimant therefore they still do not know who was driving. I did email the business that own the car park to try and get it cancelled and they did ask why I used their carpark however I denied any recollection of using it from myself or any other potential drivers. Is it wise to proceed with an argument from this angle saying I wasn't driving or had no recollection or do I come clean and state I regularly used it and one day unbeknownst to me they had it managed and installed ANPR?

2. I rambled in my original post about the lighting / signage, is this a worthy argument to include or would this be a waste of time?

I will include their POC below and also I managed to find the first letter regarding the PCN they sent so I will be sure to upload this as soon as I am home from work today (If its relevant?) 




Lastly I'd like to state how I am aware how much everyone on this forum works to help everybody out and that you have laid out as much info as possible in threads to make the process flow as smoothly as possible so if I am asking obvious questions that have been answered I do apologise I just feel like I am going in circles by myself trying to absorb everything.
  

Coupon-mad

That's OK. We understand.

But when you go & find that defence I told you to use, all will become clear.  See the Template Defence announcement thread at the top.

KeithP

Casta198 said:

...I am here with 12 days left to file a defence. The issue date was 18/12/2023, I filed an AoS on the 27/12/2023 which if I am correct gives me until the 20/01/2024 to file a defence however this is a Saturday so I am taking my deadline as the 19/01/2024.  

Almost right, but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd January 2024 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

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'.

Casta198

Thank you both for the swift responses and further thanks @KeithP for correcting me on my deadline date.

I have begun my first draft and would like your feed back.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxx

Between

Civil Enforcement Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxx

 (Defendant)

_________________

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 was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

 *CEL v Chan transcript pics*

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

5. The Defendant, at the time of the alleged breach was visiting xxxx Snooker Club, located adjacent to the car park at *Car park location* . It was under the honest belief that the car park was designated for the exclusive use of xxxx Snooker Club’s patrons. This understanding was a significant factor in the decision to park in the said location, as the Defendant was there specifically to patronize xxxx's Snooker Club.

6. The Defendant, at the time of parking, did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the parked vehicle's location. This absence of prominent signage led to an unawareness of any parking restrictions. The signage that was present was not only positioned at an elevated and obscure location on the building but also faced a direction opposite to where vehicles, including the Defendant's, were parked. Furthermore, the signage was unlit, further diminishing its visibility and effectiveness in conveying the necessary information to motorists.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

7. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred. 

Rest of the template defence follows

A few queries:

1. My friend was with me at the time, do I mention this fact as well as he did not observe any signage either? Further to this could he produce a WS in support of this when it comes to it?

2. In para 6. I write 'The signage that was present was positioned...' Do I need to make clear this was observed at a later date than the incident ?

3. in hharry100's defence he included a para highlighting the POC and it's character limit on MCOL and they should have sent a more detailed POC. Am I correct in thinking this has been rewritten in Para 4 and doesn't need including again?

Lastly, I visited the car park today to gather evidence of the signage for use later on down the line, I haven't uploaded it here as I don't want to unnecessarily clog the post, would there be any benefit in me doing so? 

Coupon-mad

1.  Yes you could do.

2.  Yes you do need to.

3.  Not sure. Don't think so?  Is it a duplicate?

Now you need to search for other CEL defences from 2023 to find the extra paragraph about the 'payment due date' being premature.

Casta198

Thank you for the further advice. See below updated defence.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxx

Between

Civil Enforcement Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxx

 (Defendant)

_________________

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 was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

 

 *CEL v Chan Transcript pics*

 

 

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

5. The Defendant, at the time of the incident, was visiting Riley’s Snooker Club, located adjacent to the car park at *Car park Location*. It was under the honest belief that the car park was designated for the exclusive use of xxxx’s Snooker Club’s patrons. This understanding was a significant factor in the decision to park in the said location, as the Defendant was there specifically to patronize xxxx’s Snooker Club.

6. The Defendant, at the time of parking, did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the parked vehicle's location, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions. This was a sentiment echoed by a fellow occupant of the vehicle, who also did not notice any signage. It was only upon a subsequent revisit to the car park that several critical facts about the signage were established. Firstly, the sign at the entrance was oriented in a manner that faced away from the direction of travel when entering, rendering it not in view to those arriving from that direction.

6.1. Additionally, the existing signage in the car park was found to be positioned at an elevated and obscure location on the building and faced a direction opposite to where vehicles, including the Defendant’s, were typically parked. Furthermore, the signage was unlit, substantially diminishing its visibility, especially during times of low light, thus impacting its effectiveness in conveying the necessary information to motorists.

7. The Defendant would also like to highlight a significant issue that further undermines the Claimant's cause of action: the potential non-compliance with the Notice to Keeper (NTK) requirements and the incorrect specification of a payment due date in the POC.  This matter pertains directly to the stipulations of Schedule 4, paragraphs 8 or 9, of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The Defendant intends to address concerns regarding the wording of the NTK and a critical inaccuracy within the POC. Notably, the POC incorrectly states a payment due date of 03/12/2022, a date that appears to improperly and prematurely assert keeper liability, thereby contravening the legal framework established under POFA.

7.1 This misaligned due date significantly deviates from the statutory 28-day period mandated by POFA. To illustrate: the NTK was issued on 09/11/2022. Taking into account standard postal delivery times, it would likely have been received on 11/11/2022. According to POFA, the 28-day period for payment or dispute commences the day following receipt of the NTK, which in this instance, sets the earliest lawful payment due date to 09/12/2022. However, the Claimant’s POC states the payment due date as 03/12/2022 – a date falling notably short of the legally required timeline.

 7.2 This premature payment demand is not only a significant procedural discrepancy but also casts doubt on the legal soundness of the Claimant's assertions regarding keeper liability and the alleged debt, including the computation of backdated interest. Such deviations from the stipulated legal framework significantly compromise the enforceability of the parking charge notice, as outlined under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

*Rest of template defence follows*


The paragraph I was referring to in hharry100's defence is below:

6.  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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.  The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise:

(a) the contractual term(s) relied upon;
(b) the details of any alleged breach of contract
(c) how many 'PCNs' are being pursued in this claim, exactly when the alleged conduct occurred (dates and times) and how much each of these charges were;

6.1.  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 would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

I believe it has expanded on para 4 a little by talking about character limit and a more detailed POC should've been provided.

Thank you again for your help.

Coupon-mad

All good except 7.2 sounds like Chat GPT wrote it - which we hate and so will a Judge!

Casta198

Hello again, I am just filling out the directions questionnaire and I just have a couple of questions:

I was planning on getting a statement from my friend who was with me about the signage and lighting of the car park etc, I am not expecting him to come to court as a witness so I am answering 1 witness to question E3. Is this correct and can I still provide a witness statement from him without him coming to court on the day?

Lastly, the paperwork I received only had the Claim No. filled out. It says 'To be completed by, or on behalf of,' Am I suppose to just put my name here or leave it blank?

Thank you in advance.

Le_Kirk

The question about witnesses is only so the court can allocate a suitably sized room so if you put two and only one turns up it isn't a problem, if you put one and 14 turn up, there will be an issue!  Did you read the advice (linked from the NEWBIE sticky) about how to complete the N180?