Preparing my defence against Civil Enforcement Limited

gbxbrit

Hello,

I have found this great forum and would be grateful for help and advice regarding a claim by Civil Enforcement Limited.
I have done my AOS as advised here which should give me until around the 26/01/24 to write up my defence.

The PCN states that I was in the car park for 24 minutes (I didn’t think I was there that long) but actually never was able to park as it was completely full and eventually gave up waiting.  So I was never in the position to read the fine prints on the board.  I don’t mind paying for car park but only if I am able to actually park.
Since the original PCN, I have received numerous letters which I ignored on the advice of a friend which, I appreciate now, was perhaps not the best course of action.



Any advice would be greatly appreciated to fight back this unscrupulous company.

Coupon-mad

Use the hharry version of defence, linked in the Template Defence third paragraph; the one where you put your facts as para 4 underneath the images of CEL v Chan.

Show us your draft para 4 where you can admit to driving and state what happened.

...plus an extra paragraph copied from another recent CEL defence (search the forum) about the 'payment due date' being premature

gbxbrit

Thank you Sir, would do that and report further.  Thanks again !

troublemaker22

@Coupon-mad is not a sir, she’s a gracious lady 

gbxbrit

My apologies 

gbxbrit

Thank you Coupon-mad, is this the correct paragraph about the premature payment due date : 

8.  There is a further matter negating any cause of action, namely an incorrect 'payment due date' in the POC.  This point relies on Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of 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').  This has the object or effect of these pleadings attempting to allege keeper liability wrongfully, and/or earlier than the law would allow. 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 the same day as the alleged event (which it cannot have been) a NTK would be deemed served two working days later.  Adding the POFA's statutory 28 days starting with the day after service of the NTK, the soonest that the 'right to recover' might exist would have been several days later than this Claimant states in their POC. That is, if they are seeking keeper liability under the POFA at all, which the Court and Defendant are being forced to guess.

Finally, I am about finished drafting my own para 4 from the hharry template but when I do a search Template defence, I can’t get the full template, has it disappeared from the forum  ?

KeithP

gbxbrit said:

I have done my AOS as advised here which should give me until around the 26/01/24 to write up my defence.

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Coupon-mad

gbxbrit said:

Thank you Coupon-mad, is this the correct paragraph about the premature payment due date : 

8.  There is a further matter negating any cause of action, namely an incorrect 'payment due date' in the POC.  This point relies on Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of 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').  This has the object or effect of these pleadings attempting to allege keeper liability wrongfully, and/or earlier than the law would allow. 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 the same day as the alleged event (which it cannot have been) a NTK would be deemed served two working days later.  Adding the POFA's statutory 28 days starting with the day after service of the NTK, the soonest that the 'right to recover' might exist would have been several days later than this Claimant states in their POC. That is, if they are seeking keeper liability under the POFA at all, which the Court and Defendant are being forced to guess.

Finally, I am about finished drafting my own para 4 from the hharry template but when I do a search Template defence, I can’t get the full template, has it disappeared from the forum  ?

Why search for an Announcement thread (pinned at the top of the forum)?

Yep that is the right extra paragraph.

gbxbrit

Thank you again Coupon-mad for your assistance, this is the draft of my own defence :

The private car park referred to in the particulars of claim was/is located at Wycombe Rye Lido, Bassetsbury Lane, High Wycombe, HP11 1QX. The defendant of the vehicle remembered the car park to be extremely busy as it serves a public outdoor swimming pool and it was a very hot weather day.  Several cars ahead were also waiting for a space to become available. The particulars of the alleged breach are not stated in the claim, but the driver of the vehicle never was able to actually park his car and eventually left the car park a few minutes later.  Therefore the defendant disputes any contravention of parking terms occurred.

Shall I write the extra paragraph about the payment due date after the above or at the end as paragraph 31 ?

gbxbrit

Also thank you KeithP, here is my claim history :

A claim was issued against you on 29/12/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 03/01/2024 at 14:50:48

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 03/01/2024 at 16:05:23

Coupon-mad

You put that extra paragraph where everyone else has in your search results.  Reading them first will give you good phrases to crib from.

Remove the word 'eventually'.

Typo here, makes no sense:

"The defendant of the vehicle"