Letter before action. CEL

foxyloxey · 20 September 2019 at 9:03PM

Hi all,
Would really appriciate some help or pointing to the right place.

I received an LBA on Monday from CEL and I confused with what I need to do.
I’ve looked through the newbie thread and just got even more confused.
I am disputing the claim and will write back to them. I would like to know how much I should put in that letter. Do I ask for the data they hold on me in that or do this separate?
were is the form I have to fill in, they've put a website address but it looks like its to make payment.

The back ground, to cut a long story short.
We were at a coastal town on our last day and I dropped my wife off at the top of the town with my wallet and I drove to the quayside car park with the kids to do crabbing while I waited for my wife. First time we’d parked there and I had a small amount of change. It was busy (school hols) and I was a while getting a space. Once parked I went for a ticket and the only option was all day for £4.50 and I didn’t have enough. All the other car parks charged around £1.50/hr and this is what I expected. I went back to the van to look for more change with no luck. I went back to the ticket machine and saw the T&C that allowed 10 mins to get a ticket. I was probably over that any way by now and I was stuffed with making payment.
My wife returned after 40 mins and I bought a ticket and thought that seeing it was for all day I’d paid up. I was wrong hence been here.
The T&C on the entrance to the car park faced inwards so you couldn’t see them unless you read them backwards in the mirror and the print was only big enough if you were on foot really, not in a van watching out for people walking about and looking for a space.
They have now put some big signs up facing outwards at 45 degrees as you drive in.
Should I ask when they did this and why, or save that for later?
I appealed but was not successful. All I did was admit I was driving!! I know should have found this thread 13 months ago.

Redx · 20 September 2019 at 9:43PM

just email a SAR with a pic of the V5C document attached plus a copy of the debt letter , using the DPA under GDPR wording to get all your own personal data they hold on you , pics , docs and data

dont bother with anything else, just email their DPO with a SAR to get your data, then await a court claim from the CCBC in Northampton, obtain any and all evidence whilst you can , like pics of the new signs , old signs etc

The_Deep · 21 September 2019 at 9:49AM

I’ve looked through the newbie thread and just got even more confused.

This is a very run of the mill PCN, and, if the PPC have there ducks in a row, you might struggle to beat it. You need to keep reading the stickies/FAQs until they become clearer. There is no magic bullet, and the law is not your friend here.

However, as nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, you night like to consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies l

foxyloxey · 21 September 2019 at 3:17PM

[dont bother with anything else, just email their DPO with a SAR to get your data, then await a court claim from the CCBC in Northampton, obtain any and all evidence whilst you can , like pics of the new signs , old signs etc[/QUOTE]

So I'm not doing anything wrong ignoring the LBA?

foxyloxey · 21 September 2019 at 3:48PM

using the DPA under GDPR wording.

Whats this mean. Looked at the sticky thread #4 but can't find the acronyms.

Le_Kirk · 21 September 2019 at 3:53PM

foxyloxey wrote: »

using the DPA under GDPR wording.

Whats this mean. Looked at the sticky thread #4 but can't find the acronyms.

DPO = Data Protection Officer
GDPR = General Data Protection Regulation

Mrfoxyloxey · 4 March 2020 at 8:50PM

Hi All,

Thought this had gone away but it hasn't. Total claim is now £265, so anything less is a bonus.

Received county court letter on the 20th March, I selected to fully defend and extended to 28 days to prep a defence.

So here it is below.

I would be very grateful for any advice.

I know Ive not helped saying I was driving but its done now.

The ANPR image they have of me entering the car park shows the signs face inwards and I need to have eyes in the back of my head to read them. The claimed I acepted the T&C by parking but I truely did not see them and was totally unaware it had a APNR camera too.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

I am XXX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX. The PCN stated the contravention as “Breach of terms and conditions.”

2. Based upon the details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:
a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2018.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
d. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

3. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

4. The terms and conditions on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small, face away to the direction of travel to be read from a passing vehicle. The position is such that anyone attempting to read whilst in a vehicle would be unable to do so. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. The signage on the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

6. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”.

7. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

8. 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, none of this applies in this material case.

9. The Defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking a soon as possible.
In the Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

10. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

11. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Councils which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

12. The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

13. The Claimant’s representatives, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £xx to £xx. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.
b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £xx to £xx. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
c. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

14. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:

Civil Enforcement Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
c. The Claimant is put to 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
d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

15. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence:

‘The driver of the vehicle registration
XXXX XXX incurred the parking
charge(s) on XX/XX/2016 for breaching the
terms of parking on the land at Spaw Street
Arches.
The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or
is the Keeper of the Vehicle
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£170.00 for Parking Charges / Damages and
indemnity costs if applicable, together with
interest of £19.81 pursuantto s69 of the
County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing
to Judgement at £0.04 per day’

16. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

17. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

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

Coupon-mad · 4 March 2020 at 9:03PM

Received county court letter on the 20th March,

Amazing! Today is only 4th...

What's the ISSUE DATE of the claim and on what date (exactly) did you do the AOS?

You seem to have missed the new template defence (search the forum) and not read today's CEL one where I added some words about Wonga-man to someone's witness statement, that you can add to the template defence.

Not_for_real · 4 March 2020 at 9:05PM

Did you admit to being the driver at any point prior to this? If not then defend as keeper

KeithP · 4 March 2020 at 9:06PM

Received county court letter on the 20th March, I selected to fully defend and extended to 28 days to prep a defence.

I find that difficult to believe. It's only 4th March today.

Please tell us the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?
On what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?

FrankCannon · 4 March 2020 at 10:17PM

Mrfoxyloxey said:

5. The signage on the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

I believe that CEL are members of the BPA and not the IPC.

Is this Wells-Next-The-Sea by any chance ?

Letter before action. CEL

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free