CCJ from Civil Enforcement Ltd - advice please

Sumsum12

Hi, I saw your thread and, since my situation is similar, I wanted to reach out. I'm awaiting a hearing and would really appreciate it if you could share the key arguments that helped you convince the judge to set aside your case. Did citing VCS Ltd v Carr and arguing that the claim was sent to an outdated address without carrying out an address trace help, or was it due to having a strong defense? Also, congratulations on your win against CEL!

Emmanat

Hi @Sumsum12, my argument had 2 key points - the claim being sent to the wrong address and the fact that I had/have a reasonable chance of defending myself against the claim (I actually paid for parking for the period in question). Although I didn't have to spend any time in the hearing on the cases I'd cited (the judge was already happy after going through my skeleton argument), VCS v Carr was definitely one of the key elements of my overall defence as it really rams home the wrong address point and highlights the fact that the overriding thing for the judge to consider is the justice of the case.
Most, if not all, of what I submitted should be on this thread, but if you have anything else you think it would be useful to have sight of then just let me know.

Emmanat

Hi guys, another quick question from me as I prepare my defence against the claim - at the moment I've only got access to the particulars of the claim and up until now I've assumed that this is what I would have been arguing against had I been served correctly, but given how little detail there is (literally just one paragraph), I'm wondering if there's more I should be requesting to see. Can anyone shed any light here?
Thanks very much!

Coupon-mad

Emmanat said:

Hi,

I was recently applying for a loan and was made aware of a CCJ being obtained against me for £325. After speaking with CNBC, I’ve confirmed that the claimant is Civil Enforcement Ltd and have also been sent the following:

Particulars of claim:

CLAIM FOR MONEY RELATING TO A PARKING CHARGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TERMS/CONDITIONS(TCS) FOR PARKING IN PRIVATE CAR PARK (CP) MANAGED BY CLAIMANT. DRIVERS MAY ONLY PARK PURSUANT  TO TCS OF USE DISPLAYED IN CP AND AGREED UPONENTRY/PARKING. ANPR CAMERAS OR MANUAL PATROLSMONITOR VEHICLES ENTERING/EXITING THE CP AND TC BREACHES. CHARGES OF GBP182.00 CLAIMED.  

VIOLATION DATE: 01/10/2021                  

PAYMENT DUE DATE: 30/10/2021               

TIME IN: 17:33

TIME OUT: 19:00              

PCN: REFXXXXXXXXXXX                         

VEHICLE REG MARK: XXXXXXX

CAR PARK:-         XXXXXXXXXX

TOTAL DUE- GBP182.00                        

(PAY:WWW.CE-SERVICE.CO.UK OR 01158225020)   

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE SUM OF GBP217.02     FOR THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGE INC GBP35.02   INTEREST UNDER S.69 OF THE CCA 1984          RATE: 8.00% PA FROM DUE DATE TO- 26/02/24    SAME RATE TO JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT      AT DAILY RATE OF- GBP0.04                    TOTAL DEBT AND INTEREST DUE- GBP217.02     

I believe I have a good case to get this set aside, but would appreciate a bit of guidance as to whether my belief is correct and if so, the best approach to do so given the points below:

 · I haven’t seen any correspondence on this matter and the particulars of the claim don’t state which address they were sent to. I’ve checked the PCN details on the CEL website and they still have my old address which I moved out of in July 2021, so I suspect this is where letters were sent. My impression from posts that I’ve read on the forum is that, given I moved out of that address 3 months before the ‘violation’ date, it should be reasonable enough to assume that CEL should have taken adequate steps to find the most up to date address (please correct me if I'm wrong)

 · Perhaps more importantly, I’ve also checked my bank statement and receipts for that period and have proof of payment.

The parking rates in this particular location are £1 for 2 hours or £2 for 5 hours.

My email receipt shows payment of £1 being made at 17:36 (only 3 minutes after the ‘TIME IN’ stated in the particulars) which means I paid within the grace period and should have been fully covered for the time spent at the location. The only (potential) sticking point with the receipt is that for some reason it says ‘Finished time of parking… at 18:00:00’.

I’ve parked at this venue multiple times, both before and after this event, and £1 has always bought you a 2 hour stay, so the only reasons I can think of for the receipt saying 18:00 is if charging stops after 6pm or an error on their end as a specific time allocation of 24 minutes for the payment makes no sense to me

POC were as above in your OP and the background is useful for us to review now.

This is an in-house claim, signed off by 'S. Wilson' who should know better as he is a barrister (ex-Head of Legal at disgraced Wonga).

Copy another CEL S Wilson 'Payment Due Date' specific defence.

Can you show us a pic of the sign? Even if it's been shown earlier on this thread please re-post.

Sumsum12

Thank you @Emmanat for taking the time to respond and for your willingness to help me. Coupon-Mad and others here have kindly provided a lot of help and advice on how to handle this judgment and I am currently waiting for the court to schedule my hearing.

As this is my first time going to court and your case seems quite similar to mine, I wanted to hear about your experience, especially the types of questions you were asked ,so I can be better prepared for the hearing.
Thank you once again, and I wish you the best of luck with your defense.

Emmanat

Hi @Coupon-mad, unfortunately I don't have a pic of the sign. I can't find one online and I'm not local to the car park anymore so am unable to go and take a new photo either. With this in mind, I've drafted the below defence and removed references to signage. Do you think this is sufficient?

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXX

BETWEEN:
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
– and –
XXXXX (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 Particulars of Claim ("POC").

Preliminary Matter: The Claim Should Be Struck Out

2. 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."

3. The Defendant draws to the Court's attention two persuasive Appeal judgments:

·       Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023, Ref. E7GM9W44):
"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 Particulars of Claim must specify the conduct constituting the breach, which was not done in that case."
Transcript: [Link to transcript]

·       Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024, Ref. K0DP5J30):
"Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim. The Defendant must be able to understand the case against them, which was not possible in that case."
Transcript: [Link to transcript]

4. The POC in this case are identically defective and should be struck out under CPR 3.4.

The Facts Known to the Defendant

5. The Defendant was the lessee and driver of vehicle XXXXX at [location] on [date].

6. Regarding the alleged breach between 17:33 to 19:00:

(i) Valid Payment Made

·       Payment of £1 made at 17:36:20 (Exhibit 05)

·       Completed within 10 minutes of arrival as permitted by the tariff terms (Exhibit 06)

·       Covered the advertised 2-hour parking period

(ii) Full Compliance

·       Payment made just 3 minutes after alleged entry time

·       No evidence vehicle remained beyond paid period

·       No breach of terms demonstrated

(iii) Claimant's Failures

·       Cannot demonstrate any contractual breach

·       No explanation why timely £1 payment was insufficient

·       No evidence contradicting payment validity

Exaggerated Claim and Industry Misconduct

7. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

8. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

The Ministerial Foreword states:
"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

Penalty Rule and Beavis Distinguished

10. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which is fully distinguished.

11. Unlike in Beavis:

·       There was no legitimate interest extending beyond compensation

·       The charge is grossly disproportionate to the £1 tariff paid

·       The Defendant will rely on the facts as stated above

Lack of Standing or Landowner Authority

12. It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) had written authority from the landowner to offer and form contracts with drivers at this site, in their own right. Many parking operators merely act as agents and this Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

Conclusion

13. There is now evidence to support the view that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

14. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:
(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14; and
(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: XXXXX
Date: XXXXX

 

 

Emmanat

Hi @Sumsum12, my hearing was relatively straightforward to be fair, probably aided by the fact that CEL didn't turn up!

It was less me answering questions and more the judge scanning through elements of my application in turn and confirming that she had understood my argument correctly. It got to the point where I was actually worried we would end up glossing over key points that would help swing things in my favour, so I had to find an appropriate point to insert myself and cover the full sequence of events in detail, and once I started mentioning the case law that backed me up, the judge stopped me and said I didn't need to carry on.

The biggest takeaway for me was just being prepared. I approached things as if the hearing was going to start and I would be asked to tell the judge in detail what my argument is and persuade them to side with me. I definitely wasn't perfect when going through my version of events, but having the key points completely firmed up in my head helped me feel more at ease and I believe pre-empted any questions that might have come my way if my argument was less coherent.

Hope that helps, but let me know if you have any further questions.

Coupon-mad

and removed references to signage.

Eek no! ADD IT BACK!

Parking cases are ALL ABOUT the signs if your Judge doesn't strike out the claim due to the authority of CEL v Chan.

Emmanat

Thanks for the feedback @Coupon-mad, I've amended as shown below:

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXX

BETWEEN:
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
-- and --
XXXXX (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 Particulars of Claim ("POC").

Preliminary Matter: The Claim Should Be Struck Out

2. 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."

3. The Defendant draws to the Court's attention two persuasive Appeal judgments:

·       Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023, Ref. E7GM9W44):
"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 Particulars of Claim must specify the conduct constituting the breach, which was not done in that case."
Transcript: [Link to transcripts]

·       Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024, Ref. K0DP5J30):
"Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim. The Defendant must be able to understand the case against them, which was not possible in that case."
Transcript: [Link to transcripts]

4. The POC in this case are identically defective and should be struck out under CPR 3.4.

The Facts Known to the Defendant

5. The Defendant was the lessee and driver of vehicle XXXXX at [address] on [date].

6. Regarding the alleged breach between 17:33 to 19:00:

(i) Valid Payment Made

·       Payment of £1 made at 17:36:20 (Exhibit 05)

·       Completed within 10 minutes of arrival as permitted by the tariff terms (Exhibit 06)

·       Covered the advertised 2-hour parking period

(ii) Full Compliance

·       Payment made just 3 minutes after alleged entry time

·       No evidence vehicle remained beyond paid period

·       No breach of terms demonstrated

(iii) Claimant's Failures

·       Cannot demonstrate any contractual breach

·       No explanation why timely £1 payment was insufficient

·       No evidence contradicting payment validity

Signage Issues

7. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence that their signage complied with the British Parking Association Code of Practice requirements regarding:

(i) Size and positioning of signs
(ii) Legibility of terms
(iii) Adequate notice of contractual terms

8. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that:

(i) Signs were of sufficient size and prominence
(ii) All material terms were clearly displayed
(iii) The signage complied with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirements

Exaggerated Claim and Industry Misconduct

9. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

10. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

11. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

The Ministerial Foreword states:
"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

Penalty Rule and Beavis Distinguished

12. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis 20152015 UKSC 67 which is fully distinguished.

13. Unlike in Beavis:

·       There was no legitimate interest extending beyond compensation

·       The charge is grossly disproportionate to the £1 tariff paid

·       The Defendant will rely on the facts as stated above

Lack of Standing or Landowner Authority

14. It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) had written authority from the landowner to offer and form contracts with drivers at this site, in their own right. Many parking operators merely act as agents and this Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

Conclusion

15. There is now evidence to support the view that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

16. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:
(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14; and
(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: XXXXX
Date: XXXXX