Civil Enforcement Ltd Claim Form

benj2003

Hi Everyone, 

I appreciate any time taken to help with this and some general pointers. I have already logged into MCOL and Completed the Acknowledgement of Service. I think we need to log our defence very soon in the next 5 days. 

The entire case is based on a pub car parking fine. We had used this car park multiple times in the past and we were unaware they had changed so were required to enter our registration at the bar. At the time we were picking up friends following his mothers funeral so we never went into the bar. Our friend purchased a drink for me and then we left. The first I heard about the fine was a letter saying we had missed the appeal stage and required to pay £160. I went to the pub and showed them a picture we had of us in the beer garden and they said they would get it sorted. I went back three more times each time they said they would sort it. Which they didn't. 

I am just in the process of researching how to create a defence. Would anyone be able to help in pointing me in the direction of the correct template I should follow. 

Many thanks in advance. 
B

benj2003

Just to add I completed the acknowledgement of service on the 17/11/2023. 

benj2003

A claim was issued against you on 15/11/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 17/11/2023 at 19:34:55

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 20/11/2023 at 01:05:24

Coupon-mad

OK, @KeithP should be along sometime today with advice on dates/deadlines.

But you are going to be using a defence as discussed in other CEL threads with an extra point about the 'payment due date' as seen today in the thread by @massop  

KeithP

benj2003 said:

I have already logged into MCOL and Completed the Acknowledgement of Service. I think we need to log our defence very soon in the next 5 days. 

benj2003 said:

A claim was issued against you on 15/11/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 17/11/2023 at 19:34:55

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 20/11/2023 at 01:05:24

With a Claim Issue Date of 15th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 18th December 2023 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days 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'.

benj2003

Civil Enforcement Ltd

(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 and Practice Direction Part 16. 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, 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 was a patron of the Olde Boars Head. The Defendants car (Registration xxx) was parked until 21:12 in the evening of 31st August 2022 at 19:57 for a total duration of 75 minutes. 

The Defendant was not aware of any parking restrictions or a requirement to enter vehicle registration details in the premises due to obscure signage, which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. 

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.

*** Not sure as to where this piece should go. I have everything else in the defence letter template from number 4.

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 - 29th September 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 Thursday 31st August 2022 (the same day as the alleged event, which it cannot have been) a NTK would be deemed served on Saturday 2nd September.  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 September 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

KeithP

Your paragraph 4 doesn't deny that the Defendant is the driver.
That in itself is fine, but it does leave doubt.

Your paragraph 5 makes it clear that the Defendant was present so the reader could easily come to the conclusion that the Defendant was the driver... especially as you have included the phrase "where the defendant had parked".

Now, if the Defendant was the driver, then your extra paragraph - the one starting "There is a further matter" - becomes superfluous.

I think you must decide whether the Defendant was the driver or not and make that clear in your Defence.
For the avoidance of doubt... I am not suggesting that you write anything but the truth.

Coupon-mad

A NTK cannot be deemed served at a weekend, so put that date right.

Do not put this (below); none of this is known to you as fact and isn't even true. Your car wasn't "parked" until 21.12 for a total duration of 75 minutes. It might have been on site but it was not 'parked' all that time and you certainly should not be repeating their unproven times as if they are facts: 

The Defendants car (Registration xxx) was parked until 21:12 in the evening of 31st August 2022 at 19:57 for a total duration of 75 minutes. 

benj2003

Thank you both for your feedback. I have made the amendments below. 

Do I need to go into further detail in paragraph 5 stating that we remained outside without knowing the requirement to enter car registration details? Also, we had been to collect a friend from the venue who had purchased drinks for us and we have photo evidence that we had been there as patrons.  Is this necessary? 

benj2003

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 was a patron of the Olde Boars Head and was not aware of any parking restrictions or a requirement to enter vehicle registration details in the premises due to obscure signage, which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. 

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.

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.

KeithP

I see you are still using the phrase "where the defendant had parked".
Please re-read my earlier post.