claim form from CEL he;p needed on how to play it

i was under the impression that if i didnt say if i was the driver or not i could use that in my defense by saying i am the keeper of the vehicle but cannot be sure if it was me driving on the day as the day in question is over 2 years ago.

i think i have my final defence (spell check keeps putting it as defense!) is it ok to post it again to get it checked before i upload it on moneyclaim online website as i am more confused than ever...

yes i will email a pdf that is what i meant. So here is my keeper defence i think....
i cant decide if i should put myself as driver or keeper - reading this which do you think is best?
i do still need to polish the layout and numbering a bit but in essence this is what it would be...
do i need to add or remove anything?
many thanks......


In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number:

---

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited v

---

I am

---

, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle

---

.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on 01/10/2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited” (Claimant’s Legal Representative).

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
a) There was no compliant “Letter before County Court Claim” under the Practice Direction.
b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold a registered keeper defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions.
4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 21012 states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and ‘relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK mentioned a possible £276.76 for outstanding debt and damages. It also states that charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken.
Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £60 “legal representative’s (or even admin) costs” were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.
6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the driver then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver
(i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. They are also so faded they are barely readable. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
Civil Enforcement Ltd breaches -:
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, readability,lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

7. It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

8. This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
On contacting the landowner the defendant was informed that the landowner was trying to terminate their current parking control contract with Civil Enforcement Ltd due to numerous problems with complaints from customers regarding unfair and unjust fines. Thus said the defendant is a long standing customer of the site in question as they hold a gym membership for a business on this site. The defendant is not aware if Civil Enforcement Ltd still hold a parking control contract for this site or ever had one as no proof of the matter has been provided.

9. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 1st October 2018.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

so do i need to state at the top that it is a keeper defence?
Does the rest seem ok?
Im not sure whether to include a bit that says about the fine is supposedly for staying over 3hrs parked, The driver may have spent time looking for a space/queuing to get off the car park so the anpr has only recorded the vehicle coming and going it is not an indicator of the length of time parked!! or just leave it as is!