Civil Enforcement Legal Court Claim

nopcns

How high up the management food chain did you try to escalate this? Perhaps you should start at the top rather than trying to get some lowly manager to deal with something they obviously don't fully understand given that they still refer to a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company as a "fine".

Try leading them by the nose to these facts and that they are now likely to lose nit just yourself as a customer but also all your family, friends and colleagues. Let them know that it is going to cost them much more than a few £ (considering how expensive they are) in lost business just because they have an ignorant customer service agent who doesn't understand the difference between a "fine" and an invoice.

Go on social media and name and shame them, this branch in particular.

Jammin1

 nopcns said:

How high up the management food chain did you try to escalate this? Perhaps you should start at the top rather than trying to get some lowly manager to deal with something they obviously don't fully understand given that they still refer to a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company as a "fine".

Try leading them by the nose to these facts and that they are now likely to lose nit just yourself as a customer but also all your family, friends and colleagues. Let them know that it is going to cost them much more than a few £ (considering how expensive they are) in lost business just because they have an ignorant customer service agent who doesn't understand the difference between a "fine" and an invoice.

Go on social media and name and shame them, this branch in particular.

 The suggestions are great. I'll respond to the email incorporating the suggested points by @Coupon-mad as well. To answer the question, I used the complaints form on the Costa website, which opened up a complaint, which a customer service provider responded to, and then I asked to escalate, and I got a response from a 'team leader'. I'll ask them to escalate to the CEO and see how we get on

1505grandad

Pedantic observation  -    typo  -  "And I expect Costs to kindly ...."

Jammin1

Ok, so a draft of the defence (note I added the images of the transcript of the Chan judgement after 3., and it's clear on my word document but unsure if it's going to be visible on here): 

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. However, the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident.

5. The driver of the vehicle entered the Costa Coffee car park and visited Costa Coffee as a paying customer where the driver remained throughout the visit. The driver told the Defendant that they could not see any clear signage indicating any terms and conditions of parking.

6-32. Paragraphs 4-30 copied from the template defence, followed by the statement of truth.

Please et me know what you think and any suggestions for improvement

nopcns

Jammin1 said:

I'll ask them to escalate to the CEO and see how we get on

No. Don't expect them to escalate this on your behalf. Do a bit of research and find an email address for the CEO and email your complaint directly.

Jammin1

nopcns said:

Jammin1 said:

I'll ask them to escalate to the CEO and see how we get on

No. Don't expect them to escalate this on your behalf. Do a bot of research and find an email address for the CEO and email your compliant directly.

Ok I'll do that. I think the email address is Philippe.Schaillee@costacoffee.com 

Jammin1

I emailed the CEO Philippe Schaillee and he passed it on to a customer services manager who replied as follows: 

Thank you for contacting Philippe regarding your parking charge.  He has passed your complaint onto me to respond to in his absence. 

 

I was sorry to hear that you received a parking charge at our Milton Gate store, I can understand how upsetting this must have been and how frustrating this has been for you.  As Gemma has explained, Costa do not issue the charges, they are managed by a third party parking provider and Costa have no influence over this.  We do encourage our customers to contact the parking provider to appeal any charges, however as the charge was made for a visit in July of 2022 and we did not hear from you until September 2023 unfortunately the deadline for this would have passed. 

 

I am very sorry but on this occasion, we are unable to assist any further as this has now been referred to court.   We are unable to comment any further.   

Where should I take this now, or should. I just focus on defence?

Thanks

Gr1pr

I would reply and demand that they answer those questions above, about who contracted with CEL if it wasn't them, who are they nominating to represent themselves in court, etc

None of those were answered 

Jammin1

Gr1pr said:

I would reply and demand that they answer those questions above, about who contracted with CEL if it wasn't them, who are they nominating to represent themselves in court, etc

None of those were answered 

I insisted they answer my questions and they gave me the following response:

 Should you wish to take this any further, please do so in writing to the Costa Legal Team at 

 

Costa Ltd

3 Knaves Beech Business Centre

Davies Way

Loudwater

High Wycombe

Buckinghamshire

HP10 9QR

 

Costa has not contracted Civil Enforcement it would be the landowner of the Milton Park Technology and Business Centre.  Abingdon Town Council may be able to tell you who owns and manages this site.   Costa are only tennents.   We do not have a contact for Civil Enforcement. 

Should I contact Costa's legal team, or try to speak to Abington Town Council?

Coupon-mad

At last!  They've said it is not them.  So they can't contact CEL to cancel.  Costa have helped: you know who has the contract now.

I just googled the place and in five seconds found their website including 'About Us' and 'Contact Us'. Do the same.