Court Claim from Civil Enforcement civil national business centre

Baile

Hi all, would be grateful for some help since this is the first time dealing with claim that is actually filed by Civil Enforcement

I have received a claim for 170 + interest making it 191.

-Particulars of Claim

Claim for money relating to a Parking Charge for breach of contract terms/ conditions (TCs) for parking in private car park (CP) managed by Claimant. Drivers may only park pursuant to TCs of use displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/parking. ANPR cameras or manual patrols monitor vehicles entering/ exiting the CP and TC breaches. Charges of £170 claimed. 

Violation Date xx/xx/xx

Payment due date xx/ xx /xx (1 calender month)

Time inXX Time out XX

PCN XX

Vehicle reg mark XX

Car Park : XX restaurant (it's a customer parking in the middle of nowhere for legit customers!!!)  

Total Due : £170 + interest bla bla bla under S69 of CCA 1984. 

In the course of last 18 months I have received usual letter for  their alleged claim for breach of contract from themselves, third party 'debt collectors' that I have ignored. 
They have finally sent a LBC about one month ago from their own ‘legal department’. I have replied as per general advice 
- sent them a reply letter to the LBC with enquiry about nature of their claim and have proof of postage:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your ref XXX

I refer to your template letter dated XXX

I, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, deny that I owe any debt to your company, Civil Enforcement Limited. I deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

I intend to defend any claim and I invite you to withdraw at this early stage, before costs are incurred in defending an unfounded claim against me as the registered keeper. I believe your claim is baseless, misconceived and is bound to fail.

Your template letter claims to be sent in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims, but your templated LBC is non-compliant with the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct.

‘2.1 The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter. This should enable the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information…’

Your letter have NOT provided the essential information for me to understand and investigate your alleged claim.

Further, there is clear evidence that this proposed claim has no prospect of success and if pursued, will have been wrongly brought, I am advised that you have breached the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by misusing my data to mislead me about liability. You have accessed my keeper details from DVLA and disseminated my information to irrelevant third parties on multiple occasions. May I draw your attention to the strict practice of the usage of vehicle keeper’s information from DVLA; while obtaining DVLA data to enquire who was driving is allowed under the Keeper of vehicle At the Date Of Event contact (the KADOE), that data must not be further used for any purpose outside the basis upon which it was provided by the DVLA. Your company has breached the DPA outside the DVLA provision of my data.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that a Letter Before Action sent blindly to a person with no legal liability is likely to cause substantial distress and I confirm that this is the case. Your unreasonable and unlawful demand for payment is causing me significant distress and anxiety.

I require you to cease and desist. To be clear, I decline any invitation to name the driver and this is my lawful right. There the matter must end, because your company has no lawful excuse to use my DVLA data beyond the very basic cause, of enquiring as to the driver’s identity. A line must now be drawn under this exchange, apace with the breach of the PoFA 2012.

 

Should this matter proceed then I put you on notice that I will make a counterclaim for all damages suffered including but not limited to Data Protection Act (DPA) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) breaches and I expressly reserve my right to claim for aggravated damages. I also demand that you immediately cease and desist from proceeding my personal data, except to inform me that you have complied with this demand.

-          And I also send a SAR request

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Subject Access Request (Data Protection Act 2018/ General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR))

 

Regarding myself, XXX

 

Please supply all the data your firm has held about me in accordance with the DPA and GDPR inclusive but not limited to:

 

-          All photos taken

-          All letters sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier

-          Machine record of permit holders concern on the day of alleged breach of contract

-          All data held, all evidence you will rely on, and full copies of the PCN, NTK

-          A list of all PCNs you consider are outstanding against me and/or this VRM. Any claim must be for all PCNs in one claim

 

If you need to confirm my identify please let me know as soon as possible. It is required by the relevant data protection law that you respond to a request for data within one calendar month.

Please pass this SAR to your Data Protection Officer or relevant staff concerning the protection of personal data compliance. Please contact the Information Commissioner’s Office may you require assistance.

 

 

Both my reply and the SAR has been ignored, no reply from Civil Enforcement.

 

Then it comes the Claim they file with Civil National Business Centre

I have done AOC via moneyclaim online.

What is the next step forward?

-          They are yet to comply with my request for SAR;

-          the claim letter is so templated that it does not really inform the nature of their claim, what has happened other than ‘PCN for breach of contract TCs for parking in a private car park managed by Claimant.

-          The claim is not PoFA 2012 compliant for keeper’s responsibility for the alleged claim, as they have put up the charge to £170 for no valid reason. It is my knowledge that they can only claim the charge for the breach of contract as stated in the original PCN, which was £90.

 - Should I file a S77-79 CCA requests for a copy of the customer credit agreement? 

Any advice would be much appreciated.

KR

Coupon-mad

Welcome!

Please show a redacted pic of the claim form, also covering the claim number and Password of course.

Baile

Thanks you very much!

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for:

payment due date premature keeper liability

KeithP

I am going to assume you filed an Acknowledgment of Service some time after 17th November. Please confirm.

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 18th December 2023 to file a Defence.

That's over three 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'.

Baile

KeithP said:

I am going to assume you filed an Acknowledgment of Service some time after 17th November. Please confirm.

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 18th December 2023 to file a Defence.

That's over three 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'.

I have completed AOC today 23/11/23 via Moneyclaim.gov.uk and it looks like this? 
The thread is really useful. will come back with a defence for some advice!
so I will send the defence to ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk?

Le_Kirk

Have you done what @Coupon-mad suggested earlier?

Baile

I have done a draft of the defence. Advice is much appreciate! @Coupon-mad

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. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Civil Enforcement Limtied 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. 

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.

5. The Defendant received a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ with an issue date 29/4/2022 via the post for an incident concerning breach of Terms and Conditions of Parking’, namely ‘Maximum 30 minutes free parking. Thereafter permit holders only’ in the car park at Spice & Spirits restaurant. The defendant and the extended family and friends regularly visit the restaurant and there is a system whereby the restaurant staff would take the registration of the customer for exemption of customer free parking, which is FREE OF CHARGE. The Defendant authorises the vehicle to be used by driver other than the Defendant himself on a regular basis. The Defendant cannot remember who was the driver at the material time of the incident. The Defendant can assure that the driver is insured but there is no legal obligation to name that person.

 

6. The Defendant, upon receiving the Letter of Claim dated 26/09/2023, had sent two correspondences to the Claimant with a proof of postage on 5/10/2023- 1. Subject Access Request (SAR) as per the Defendant’s legal right 2. Formal Reply to the Letter of Claim seeking clarification of POC pursuant to breaching of the Practice Direction (PR) on Pre-action Conduct 2.1. The Claimant had failed to respond to neither of the requests and subsequently unduly pursed the claim through the Civil National Business Centre.

 

7. 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 criticized for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronize the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.

 

8. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of the case. Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim. The POC is 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. 

 

Failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules

 

9. Recent persuasive Appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44, attached) would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16.  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 Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct.  The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the PoC.

10. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

 

11. The Claimant made a woefully inaccurate assumption that the Defendant was the driver concerned in the incident. The POC does not provide the essential information to allow the Defendant to understand and investigate the alleged claim of breach of contract. The Claimant had ignored the SAR and request for concise details of the claim pursuant to PD 2.1 that are the Defendant’s very legal rights for clarification of liability of the allege claim.

 

 

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. The Defendant denies (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.

Failure to comply with Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) Schedule 4 and Abuse of Process

 

 

14.Recent District Court by District Judge Taylor in Britannia Parking Group v Crosby (Ref F0DP201T, attached) would indicate that for the Claimant to charge additional charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

 

15. The Claimant fails to comply with the PoFA 2012 Sch 4 to exercise the legal right of claiming the Defendant for the liability of the alleged claim as the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned pursuant to Section 4 (5) ‘The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).’ The Claimant incurred a charge of £100 in the original Notice to Keeper (NOK), the claimant arbitrarily raised the charge without providing any evidence of financial loss that has arisen in order to impose an inflated parking charge.  

  

 

Coupon-mad

What are all those final images?

You do not need 7, 8 or 9.

Look at the advice on wording on these two current CEL threads from today. Always read similar threads first to see what others have put as their defence. Did you miss these posts today?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6492420/civil-enforcement-ltd-claim-form/p1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6358707/civil-enforcement-ew-popla-declined-court-claim-filed/p4

Baile

Yes I haven't seen them and thank you! The images are just the printscreen of the Court Judgement concerned and copy of the SAR/ Reply to LoC/ Proof of postage I have attached. 
Do I attach anything in the defence?

Baile

Here is the revised draft. 

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 (and this is the same Claimant, who are simply ignoring the Appeal decision and still churning out the same generic POC to obtain 90% default CCJs. This looks like a possible case of contempt of court to the Defendant). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Civil Enforcement Limtied 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. 

(then attached picture of judgement Ref E7GM9W44)

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.

 

5.    The Defendant received a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ with an issue date 29/4/2022 via the post for an incident concerning breach of Terms and Conditions of Parking’, namely ‘Maximum 30 minutes free parking. Thereafter permit holders only’ in the car park at Spice & Spirits restaurant. The defendant and the extended family and friends regularly visit the restaurant and there is a system whereby the restaurant staff would take the registration of the customer for exemption of customer free parking, which is FREE OF CHARGE. The Defendant authorises the vehicle to be used by driver other than the Defendant himself on a regular basis. The Defendant cannot remember who was the driver at the material time of the incident. The Defendant can assure that the driver is insured but there is no legal obligation to name that person.

 

6.    The Defendant, upon receiving the Letter of Claim dated 26/09/2023, had sent two correspondences to the Claimant with a proof of postage (attached) on 5/10/2023- 1. Subject Access Request (SAR) as per the Defendant’s legal right (attached) 2. Formal Reply to the Letter of Claim seeking clarification of POC pursuant to breaching of the Practice Direction (PR) on Pre-action Conduct 2.1. (attached) The Claimant had failed to respond to neither of the requests and subsequently unduly pursed the claim through the Civil National Business Centre.

(Attached screenshots SAR, Reply letter I sent and proof of postage)

 

Failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules

 

7.    The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

 

8.    The Claimant made a woefully inaccurate assumption that the Defendant was the driver concerned in the incident. The POC does not provide the essential information to allow the Defendant to understand and investigate the alleged claim of breach of contract. The Claimant had ignored the SAR and request for concise details of the claim pursuant to PD 2.1 that are the Defendant’s very legal rights for clarification of liability of the allege claim.

 

9.    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.

10. The Defendant denies (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.

 

11. The Defendant discovered at Parking on Private Land Appeals ('POPLA') stage that these unexpected new rules only started mere weeks before this event. As further proof of the inadequacy of 'extra signage' required at the entrance and within the site, the Claimant was in breach of paragraph 19.10 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice ('the BPA CoP') which says: “https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf ” Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.

12. The defendant asserts a breach of process, highlighting that the initial correspondence received was a debt collection letter, rather than affording an opportunity to appeal.

13. 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 - 12th May 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 Wednesday 13th April 2022 (the same day as the alleged event, which it cannot have been) a NTK would be deemed served on Friday 15th April.  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 two days later than this Claimant states in their POC.  In fact, it would have been even later in May 2022 because it would have been impossible for a postal NTK (which the Defendant does 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.  The Defendant (and court) is reduced to guesswork.

 

Failure to comply with Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) Schedule 4 and Abuse of Process

 

14. Recent District Court by District Judge Taylor in Britannia Parking Group v Crosby (Ref F0DP201T, attached) would indicate that for the Claimant to charge additional charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

 

15. The Claimant fails to comply with the PoFA 2012 Sch 4 to exercise the legal right of claiming the Defendant for the liability of the alleged claim as the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned pursuant to Section 4 (5) ‘The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).’ The Claimant incurred a charge of £100 in the original Notice to Keeper (NOK), the claimant arbitrarily raised the charge without providing any evidence of financial loss that has arisen in order to impose an inflated parking charge.  

(Attached screenshot of Judgement Ref F0DP201T)

 

Then I have copied and paste the rest of the generic defence. How does that sound?