CEL MCOL Defence

dinkmack

Hi all,

I'm preparing my defence and would appreciate some advice please.
I submitted my acknowledgement of service on the 5th April. 

Issue Date: 22 Mar 2024
I am the registered keeper and driver.
I stayed over 22 minutes in a 2hr shopping carpark.

The reason for returning late was because I was with my disabled partner
who needed my support. I am their carer. They've got mental health problems and it
took longer than expected to get back to the car.
Do I include this in my defence or leave it until the court hearing?

Also that day I didn't park in a disabled spot even though my partner
has got a blue badge.

Another thing, because I am acknowledging that I returned late will that mean I wont be able
to use the signs as evidence because I'm admitting that I saw them? 

I've attached some images of the PoC and carpark signs.
I'm going to visit the carpark and take actual photos.
The first sign is the one that is at the entrance to the carpark.

I did receive letters from Civil Enforcement LTD but I ignored them because of bad advice
I received on another forum. I wish I knew about this forum sooner 

I've no longer got the letters from CEL which show photos of my car pulling in and out.
Does that matter?

Thanks in advance for any help.

KeithP

dinkmack said:

I submitted my acknowledgement of service on the 5th April. 
Issue Date: 22 Mar 2024

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 24th April 2024 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'.

KeithP

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

dinkmack

KeithP said:

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

Thank you KeithP. So do I just leave out the part about returning late from my defence?

Coupon-mad

Please just search the forum for other CEL threads using these keywords:

defence violation date CEL

dinkmack

Okay, thank you @Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad

It will find you an extra defence point and defences that you can copy.

dinkmack

Hi,

Here's my defence. I am going to include images of the CEL v Chan case
and add the rest of the template below this.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (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. 

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 and their partner were shopping at Wyndham Way Retail Park. The defendant had to assist their partner in a few shops because of mental health disabilities and had to be with them at all times for support. When returning to the car the defendant didn’t notice any parking tickets and were unaware they had broken any contracts. 

Coupon-mad

That doesn't include the extra 'violation date' and premature interest calculation point for CEL cases that my search would have revealed (if you read enough results)...

...or find it in minutes in the forum today, simply by reading my early reply about what I suggested could be the defence, on PAGE 2 of the CEL thread that is right next to yours right now.

Le_Kirk

dinkmack said:

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)             

You will,  of course, be removing this before sending by email to the recommended email address!

dinkmack

@Coupon-mad thank you for your help. I have read loads of different posts. I couldn't find anything specific for violation date. I'll keep looking 🙂. @Le_Kirk yes I will be removing those things 🙂, thanks.