Civil Enforcement Ltd Claim Form

benj2003

I missed that one, sorry. 

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. 

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 (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 Monday 4th 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 seeks to rely on POFA paragraph 8 or paragraph 9.  The Defendant (and court) is reduced to guesswork.

Coupon-mad

Same advice for a wording change as this case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80465144/#Comment_80465144

and you need the CEL v Chan transcript images exactly as shown in the hharry case linked in the Template Defence.

And every paragraph needs a number.

Re-number it all once done. You'll have over 35 paragraphs I think.  Don't show us though! Spare us having to see the rest of the Template again.

1505grandad

"However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver."

Sorry but does not KeithP post stating the following apply  -  (at least most of the para)?:-

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

benj2003

Should I remove the whole of paragraph 7 or just some of it 1505grandad said:

"However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver."

Sorry but does not KeithP post stating the following apply  -  (at least most of the para)?:-

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

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.  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

***CHAN TRANSCRIPT 4 PAGES****

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. 

6. 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.

7. 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 (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 Monday 4th 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 seeks to rely on POFA paragraph 8 or paragraph 9.  The Defendant (and court) is reduced to guesswork.

REMAINING DEFENCE UNCHANGED

benj2003

I have also just realised that the defendants name is her old pre marriage surname. On the document defence letter should use her new name ? 

Coupon-mad

Leave it all in. Do not delete para 7.

I'm surprised I've had to explain twice in a month, how to state a change of married name. I thought this was something fairly well known:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80413738/#Comment_80413738

Please also do that Justice Committee Inquiry - also explained in that link - this weekend (either you and the defendant doing separate submissions as you are both angry about this rubbish, or at least one of you - please).  On this forum we are actively influencing change across the board.