CCJ from Civil Enforcement - I don't feel I did wrong

Tliffo

fisherjim said:

I assume you mean here (Toby is in background), the signage is abysmal as always, easily missed, but that's how the scam works!

But to compound matters it looks like you have UKPC monitoring some parking, CEL and Euro Car Parks monitoring others.

Yes, this is what I was explained later - Toby's car park is monitored by another company form the car park where I parked, that's why they didn't look at my registration. How can a person using services know??? Even an employee in the pub didn't know this. 

Tliffo

thanks to everyone who advised. I have files AOS abd drafter my DEFENCE. I would appreciate comments:

 THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED

(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').

 

2. The facts known to the Defendant:

 The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. 

2. The Defendant was attending a work meeting at the Toby Carvery restaurant, which is located within Wolviston Services. Upon arrival, the Defendant signed in as a guest and entered their vehicle registration details into the restaurant's system, which allows guests free parking for the day. This has been confirmed by Toby Carvery, and evidence has been provided.

 

3. It is the Defendant's understanding that different parking companies operate various parking lots at Wolviston Services. The Defendant parked in good faith in a parking area that they reasonably believed to be covered by the Toby Carvery guest parking agreement. The Defendant had no way of knowing that this specific lot was operated by a different parking company, as the signage was confusing and did not make this clear.

 

4. The signage at the location is inadequate, unclear, and fails to meet the standards set by the BPA Code of Practice. While the signs state a maximum parking period of 60 minutes, the small print is illegible, and the key terms are not prominent. The Defendant reasonably relied on the Toby Carvery guest parking arrangement and could not have understood from the signage that this would not apply to the area in which they parked.

 

5. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate any clear breach of contract, and in any event, the Defendant denies being liable for the parking charge under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. The Claimant has not established that they have the right to pursue the Defendant, either as driver or as keeper.

 

6. The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to provide sufficient detail to understand the Claimant's case. The Defendant requests that the claim be struck out for failing to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16, or alternatively, the Claimant be required to provide further and better particulars.

 

7. In light of the above, the Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Tliffo

Also uploading their POC and claim form letter:

Coupon-mad

Please don't call it a parking lot. No such English phrase exists! Horrible Americanism.

Change this:

3. It is the Defendant's understanding that different parking companies operate various parking lots at Wolviston Services.

to this:

3. The Defendant has only discovered since, that different parking companies operate various parking lots at Wolviston Services. Even the staff did not know this when the Defendant was there taking evidence pictures, so the delineation cannot possibly be clear enough.

Tliffo

Submitted my Defence to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk and got confirmation, ready for the next step

Tliffo

i received this letter today 



I have responded to the claim, I emailed my Defence to  Claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk on the 30th, a day before the deadline and received a confirmation, attached below:


I haven't yet received any other response.
I thought I will ask here first. Thank you

Gr1pr

Complain about it to the CNBC  ASAP 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6579291/dcbl-n180-and-n244#latest

There seems to be a lot of errors during the  xmas and new year breaks

Coupon-mad

Easy to sort out. No paying.