CEL parking defence help!?

iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice
to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents
they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is
being claimed
vii. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file
another defence.
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 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 £247.95 for
outstanding debt and damages.
4. 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 £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin)
costs' were incurred
5. 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. None of this applies in this material case.
5.i. This case can further be distinguished from the Beavis case as the rationale behind
upholding the decision in Beavis was to encourage turnover of customers for the shop,
whereas in this instance the contravention was 8:57pm after the shop has closed.
5.ii. This case can be distinguished further from Beavis as another rationale in that
judgement stated it was fair to uphold the judgement on the basis that if one was parking on
a council street at the same time then they could reasonably expect to pay a Penalty Charge
Notice. As the contravention happed at 8:57pm, it was not during the hours whereby a
council would issue a PCN.
6. 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) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of
Practice.
(iii) It is believed the signage was not lit 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 by 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.
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.
7. 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.
8. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any
contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal
damages.
9. 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.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the
Court to note that the Claimant has:
(a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on
21/02/2017
(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on
irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered
keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
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.
Signed DEFENDANT
Date 14/10/2017

Comments please:)?

I panicked when I saw the letter