CCJ from CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD

Hi All,

Thanks for your help initially. I've now done loads of reading and written my defence:

Summary of the case:

1. Paid for a hotel room for the night. The hotel has free parking for its guests but uses an ANPR system and if not entered into their system you get a ticket. The keeper did not enter their car reg number into the system.
2. Entered the hotel at 00.38 and left at 10.02. 6 days later received a PCN almost 12 months ago for £60 within 14 days and £100 within 28.
3. Received letters from CEL and Wright hassall including a letter 30-days before county court form in accordance with pre action conduct and protocol.
4. Have received documentation from the hotel proving the defendant stayed at the hotel on the night of the issue from their booking system.

Please see my defence and I would very much appreciate some feedback:


In the County Court
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited
V
XXXXXXXXXXX




Claim Number: XXXXXXXX

Defence


I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on 19/02/2018 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”.
2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). 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.
3. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
4. The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
5. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.!
6. The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

a) ‘early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
d) support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.’

7. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
8. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
a) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)

b) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
c) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter

9. 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 me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.

Schedule 4 also 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, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £327.81 for outstanding debt and damages.
11. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs’ were incurred.
12. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage 'contract', none of this applies in this material case.
13. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant 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 - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

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. 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.
iii. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!

i. the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
ii. the sum pursued exceeds £100.
iii. there is / was no compliant landowner contract.
14. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
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.

15. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.
16. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car over 2 years later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keepers can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.!
17. The claimant lists £96 in debt recovery costs. As such agencies often work on a "no-collection, no-fee" basis, the defendant disputes the substance of such claims without receipt of an official invoice proven to be paid.
18. The claimant lists administrative costs of £40, which is not only unsubstantiated, but should not be claimable as such costs will be part of normal duties.
19. The defendant disputes the infallibility of ANPR technology, and the data quoted, which does not definitively prove that any contravention has taken place.
20. The claimant has failed to supply proof that they have standing in this case, and expects the defendant to trust in their "say-so" within the Particulars of Claim.
21. The claimant has failed to prove that signage existed at the location on the date in question, and that any so-called "contract" was verbatim to their claim, which can otherwise be deemed speculative.
22. The terms and conditions of the landowner state that free parking is available to anyone who has paid for a room at the hotel on the date in question
23. The defendant denies agreeing to or being aware of any contract or pricing structure set by the claimant.
24. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

Yes I have, thanks.

Should have noted this.