CEL county court claim letter - defence advice needed

Hi both - very useful. I've acknowledged on MCOL. I'll do all the stuff you've recommended over the next couple of days (sorry, also changed wording of post - meant 'examples', not 'templates') but here's the info requested by Redx:

- Issue date 11 Oct, so I make that defence has to be in by 13 November as that is 33 days later (plan on getting it in well before that)
- Checked Land Registry - CEL does not own the land
-PoC:

Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the terms + conditions (T+Cs). Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with the T + Cs of use. ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site.
Debt + damages claimed to the sum of £XXX.XX
Violation date: XX/XXX/2017
Time in: XX:XX Time out XX:XX
PCN ref:XXXXXXXXXXX
Car registration no.: XXXXXXX
Car park: - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Total due XXX.XX
(Ref:[CEL website address] or Tel:01158225020)
The Claimant claims the sum of XXX.XX for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 11.25 interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Court Claims Act 1984
Rate 8.00% pa from the dates above to - 10/10/18
Same rate to Judgement or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to Judgement 0.04
Total debt and interest due- XXX.XX

Hello all,

Thanks for the advice so far - really helpful. Here's my draft defence. Went for something concise(ish) and went first person as suggested on a thread on the Newbies FAQs by Bargepole but am open minded. Hopefully it's broadly there but advice and tweaks welcome.

---

I am XXXXXX, the Defendant and was the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX in this matter when the claim was issued.

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

1. The Claim Form issued on XXXXXXX by the Claimant – Civil Enforcement Limited – was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by a Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail – saying vaguely that the Claim is for “monies relating to a parking charge in breach of Terms + Conditions”. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any explanation of the alleged contract between me and the Claimant, any evidence of contravention or photographs. An explanation of the alleged contract has never been provided to me.

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 cut-and-paste Particulars contain very little information.

c) I therefore ask the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

3. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £70, for which no calculation or explanation is given, interest and court fees – making the overall claim more than £250. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is not credible that £50 'legal representative’ costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

4. According to the Land Registry the land in question is not owned by the Claimant. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment through litigation.

b) In the absence of 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.

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.

In summary, the Claimant's Particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.