Court claim from CEL

halfbee

I received a court claim today from CEL so I'd be really grateful with some defence advise, The examples and templates don't really seem to fit my circumstances.

Incident 29/11/22 

20/12/22 My first error was to appeal on the CEL website, I received no notification of claim rejection so CEL upped the charge. Their website continued to show 'Claim Received', not Claim rejected so I had no way of knowing that my claim was unsuccessful.

20/03/23 Appealed to the BPA because I was not issued a rejection within 35 days, this started a long email chain which resulted in CEL reducing the fee to £60 'as a gesture of goodwill'.  At this point I was ready to pay just to get them off my back but their website continued to demand £170

05/04/23 Next I appealed to POPLA, I appealed on the basis that it was my first visit to a new GP surgery and I failed to apply for a free permit by entering my Reg No.

25/05/23 POPLA rejected my claim

After this I started reading this amazing forum and realised I have made many mistakes...

I have all the emails, screenshots etc. but I don't know which way to go with my defence - In my mind any sane judge would accept my mitigation and reject the CEL claim but I'm no lawyer.

halfbee

I forgot to say, I've filled out the AOS online to give me longer on my defence.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

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

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.

Coupon-mad

My first error was to appeal on the CEL website, I received no notification of claim rejection so CEL upped the charge. Their website continued to show 'Claim Received', not Claim rejected so I had no way of knowing that my claim was unsuccessful.

Appeal, not claim.

You've done this?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6528490/official-dluhc-paid-research-have-you-ever-appealed-a-parking-charge-notice/p1

Please, please do that first.

halfbee

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

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

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.

Thanks Keith.  Issue date on Court form 15/05/24  AOS entered today 20/05/24

halfbee

Coupon-mad said:

My first error was to appeal on the CEL website, I received no notification of claim rejection so CEL upped the charge. Their website continued to show 'Claim Received', not Claim rejected so I had no way of knowing that my claim was unsuccessful.

Appeal, not claim.

You've done this?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6528490/official-dluhc-paid-research-have-you-ever-appealed-a-parking-charge-notice/p1

Please, please do that first.

Thank you Coupon mad, I've just completed the survey.

LDast

You have until 4pm on Monday 17th June to file your defence. As the PoC are woefully inadequate, when using the Template defence, make sure you use the added Preliminary Matter of the CEL v Chan appeal judgment as linked through hharry100.

When you show us what you have added/edited, only confirm the layout of the first few paragraphs and show us only the bits you added. We don't need to see the whole defence but you will be using it.

Coupon-mad

This is all explained in the Template Defence.

halfbee

OK, here's my fist draft - thanks so much for helping.

Para 1, 2 as per template

3. The defendant was attending his preliminary appointment at his new General Practitioners surgery. He was understandably nervous about the upcoming medical examination and was concerned with finding the reception desk to book in for his appointment. Rather than park legally on the road outside of the Health Centre he parked off road in the Health Centre car park. 

 

4.The defendant did not notice any signage relating to the requirement of applying for a free parking permit by entering a vehicle registration number into touch screen device.

5.On a subsequent visit to the Heath Centre the touch screen registration device was discovered in an anti-room off the waiting toom.

6.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

<cut and paste from hharry100>

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

para 7,8

Copy of transcript of CEL Vs Chan

para 9-35 from template

LDast

No, no, no! You are answering the allegation in the PoC. You do not say silly things like (paraphrasing) "rather than park legally on the road the driver parked illegally elsewhere". Can you see the inference there?

As you are admitting being the driver, all you really needed was to say tat the defendant was attending an appointment at the GP surgery. There were no obvious or prominent signs indicating that the vehicle registration had to be input into a touch-screen anywhere. That's about it. If you have to expand on that it will be at WS time, if this ever gets that far.

Additionally, your layout and sequencing is all wrong. There is para #1 then the sub-heading "Preliminary Matter" followed by the CEL v Chan [aras #2 and #3 then the embedded images of the transcript. Next is the subheading "The fact as know to the defendant" followed by para #4 which includes the info on whether you are the keeper and/or the driver. Next is para #5 which need only be the bit I have shown you above and then all the rest of the template with each para numbered sequentially.

halfbee

Thanks so much for the guidance. 

---

Para 1

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

para 2,3

imbedded images

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 attending his preliminary appointment at his new General Practitioners surgery. He was understandably nervous about the upcoming medical examination and was concerned with finding the reception desk to book in for his appointment.

6.The defendant did not notice any signage relating to the requirement of applying for a free parking permit by entering a vehicle registration number into a touch screen device.

7.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

para 8 to 34 as per template.