Civil enforcement ltd county court claim form

Pcnhater wrote: »

In The County Court

Claim No: XXXXXXX

Between

Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________

DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant is a regular customer of XXXXXX golf club and has parked in their car park on many occasions over the past 15 years. On the day in question the Defendant noticed new parking signs had been placed on lamp posts around the car park. The text on these signs and the height they were placed at made them impossible to read from a passing vehicle, and the small print could not be discerned even when standing near a sign.

2.1. The Defendant reported to the club house as usual and asked the staff of the golf club what he needed to do in regards to the new parking system. The Defendant was informed by the staff member that his vehicle registration number had to be entered into the touchscreen located on the wall behind the bar. The Defendant was then instructed to write his vehicle registration on a piece of paper and told that a member of staff would enter it into the touchscreen when they were less busy. The Defendant complied with this request then went to start his round of golf.

3. After receiving a parking ticket from the Claimant, the Defendant replied to the Claimant, providing evidence of his online booking at the golf club for the day and time of the alleged offence, showing that the Defendant was a paying customer and was entitled to park there. The Claimant insisted that the defendant was still liable to pay.

4. The golf course itself has emailed the Claimant to have the parking ticket cancelled, and the golf club has admitted full responsibility for the Defendant's vehicle registration not being entered correctly on the day in question. The Defendant was copied into that email and will produce it in evidence.

5. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. 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.

7. Even if it is proven that the Claimant has the necessary authority, in general, then it cannot be claimed that there is a 'commercial justification' for issuing parking charge notices to golf club patrons, fully distinguishing this case from Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case'). Not only were the signs unclear, but the golf club owner has stated in writing that he does not support the ticketing of the Defendant. The golf club - being the landowner/leaseholder in possession - does not support the conduct of this out of control contractor, and the owner remarked that he is livid about the claims and harassment against club members.

8. Further, there was no 'relevant contract or obligation' that was breached by any action of the Defendant, and the signage also failed the test for clarity and prominence set by the Beavis case. The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Thus, the charge is unrecoverable, and indeed unconscionable, given the facts of this case and the Beavis case is distinguished.

9. BPA Code of Practice which binds this Claimant, has mandatory rules about extra signage for new restrictions, at 18.10:
''Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.''

10. It is denied that the Claimant’s signage - such as it was - sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. There is no ‘Red Hand Rule’ style warning giving appropriate prominence to the onerous risk of being bound by terms that introduce a 'hidden pitfall or trap' (Beavis case wording from the Supreme Court) that leads to a penalty that was never capable of being agreed.

11. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') in Schedule 4, Para 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 being a maximum of £100, if the Claimant has a cause of action at all, which is denied.

12. Regarding purported 'legal costs', according to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated clerical staff. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred any case-specific legal costs, because no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all and this Claimant uses an in house administrative team. It is noted that no named solicitor has signed the claim form.

13. It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim that it is not entitled to recover. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot. Claims such as this have recently been struck out by County Courts for reasons of: ''Substantial charge additional to the parking charge. Additional charge not recoverable under the POFA, Pre-action Protocol and CPRs...this is an abuse of process.''

14. Even if letters were sent by any third party, debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, therefore no costs or damages have been incurred, in truth. Nor can a parking operator add any 'damages' to the PCN sum, not even if a further sum is mentioned on signage, because this would exceed the maximum parking charge (£100). Any additional charge for damages/indemnity costs (howsoever described) for parking on private land is not recoverable under the BPA Code of Practice and/or the POFA Schedule 4, nor with reference to the CPRs, the pre-action protocol for debt claims and the judgment in the Beavis case.

15. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters (including any pre-action 'debt recovery' letters which are all part of a template chain). Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this industry's repeated abuse of consumers' rights and remedies by attempting double recovery.

16. In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using the case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

SIGNED

DATE