Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • denchgang9
    • By denchgang9 22nd Jul 17, 5:10 PM
    • 23Posts
    • 11Thanks
    denchgang9
    Wright Hassall CEL (Letter of Claim) HELP!
    • #1
    • 22nd Jul 17, 5:10 PM
    Wright Hassall CEL (Letter of Claim) HELP! 22nd Jul 17 at 5:10 PM
    Hello all!

    Drafted a letter to respond to WH below. Just for ease and transparency, here's a summary of the current situation and the particulars of this case:
    • Never received the initial PCN from CEL which claims to have been submitted end of 2016... My first ever correspondence came over 2 months later as a "final reminder before legal action" from CEL
    • I have since received letters from ZZPS (all ignored) and I'm now on my 2nd letter from Wright Hassall which is the "Formal Letter of Claim" @ £236
    • FYI, not stating that I was the driver, simply registered keeper - fyi they're claiming "Payment was not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage" - does this affect this case any differently to those who overstayed for example?
    • The "incident" occurred on a Bank Holiday... though the sign in smallprint (having revisited the site) shows parking needs to paid all year round - should this be mentioned in defence?
    • we do not actually know who was driving at the time, the parents have access to vehicle too (albeit driving on 3rd party 'driving other cars' cover under their own insurance). PCN has been sent to the RK
    • ANPR technology used, no pictures have been sent to me to prove this of my vehicle/driver however

    My response to WH, please comment / modify where appropriate, I'm very mindful I don't have a legal background and this could be nonsense!:


    Thank you for your letter dated ..... .

    First, the alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

    Second, I deny any debt with you. The driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue me as the registered keeper of this vehicle. I am under no legal obligation to name the driver and therefore your client cannot legally hold me responsible for this charge as the registered keeper.

    CEL failed to meet the requirements of POFA schedule 4 to hold the keeper liable. Namely, but not limited to, failed to deliver the notice to keeper within 14 days. The claimant did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA 2012”) and give the registered keeper opportunity at any point to identify the driver.

    A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked; the first correspondence received regarding this matter is dated XXX (the PCN was supposedly issued December 2016, I received first correspondence over 2 months after this date…?! – is this a valid point? No original PCN was received, only a “final reminder before legal action” over 2 months after the alleged incident)

    No ticket was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges. The following are some of the reasons the speculative invoice was not a notice to keeper and did not comply with POFA 2012:
    a) It was not a notice to keeper but a “Parking Charge Notice” as detailed in the title of the invoice.
    b) It did not advise that the driver is liable for the parking charge and that it has not been paid in
    full.
    c) It did not warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the
    name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the
    parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered
    keeper.
    d) It did not state the means of how the parking ticket was issued, it simply quoted dates and times of the alleged offence.
    e) It was a speculative invoice titled “Parking Charge Notice” and not a notice to keeper and was not
    sent within the 14 day period to comply with POFA 2012 even if it was deemed to comply with
    POFA 2012.

    Third point, your letter does not comply with the Pre Action Protocol, I refer to Para 4 (5) of the Act regarding the additional amount charged. Your client cannot recover a sum greater than the original parking charge. The charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. CEL failed to take legal action following its Letter Before Action for £100. It has not only failed to mitigate its costs but artificially inflated the amount in an attempt at double recovery.

    In order to prepare my evidence I require you to provide me with evidence on how the charge is calculated. You should note that Civil Procedure rules state that your 'legal fees' are not recoverable. The defendant has claimed legal costs that cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court (CPR 27.14). The solicitor, Wright Hassall, was in any case engaged by ZZPS, not the Claimant that is a stranger to the arrangement.

    Fourth, if you decide to instigate court proceedings, please make it clear for me who the actual creditor making the parking charge demand is and in what capacity. Are ZZPS Limited the creditor? If so do they have legal capacity to take out this action? [CEL is not the land-owner and therefore has no legal capacity unless in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice, it is specifically authorised. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant, in fact, has no contract with the land-owner and puts it to proof of the chain of authority.] – not sure if this is correct in my case? It was a small private parking lot outside a restaurant.

    Please also explain why you are accepting instructions from ZZPS Ltd. It has no legal capacity to pursue a payment through the courts and instructing a solicitor on behalf of a third party is a reserved legal activity and offence under the Legal Services Act 2007 Part 14.

    Fifth, I require a detailed list of all essential documents you will use in the court so I can prepare my defence. Including time date stamped photos of signage and where the car was parked and for how long.

    I have visited the site recently and believe the current signage is not sufficiently prominent for someone to be fully aware of the contract they are entering into and in particular the core term of the contract, being the £100 parking charge, is lost in the small text below other information. I am interested to find out if the signage was the same on the date of the incident, which I believe fail to meet the requirements of the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

    [Sixth, I have read the Pre Action Protocol in detail and it states that you should seek out other options before court proceedings in the form of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Please issue me with a POPLA code so I can resolve this dispute through this method. Should you reject this, I would like to remind you of your duty to mitigate loss and not to incur additional losses unnecessarily. I will make this point known to the court that Alternative Dispute Resolution was offered, as every effort should be made to reach a settlement rather than use court proceedings.] – is this still applicable at this stage?

    I await your response to the above points in this acknowledgment which I expect within 14 days. I will then provide you with my full and final reply as required by the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct and I would wish to remind you of your duties under it.



    Thanks in advance for any pointers for this response to WH's "letter of claim"
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Jul 17, 8:15 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,064 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 22nd Jul 17, 8:15 PM
    • #2
    • 22nd Jul 17, 8:15 PM
    Look at Jonersh's example response if the letter comes from Tim Hawker, the debt collector man:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72802210#post72802210

    And however you write your version in the end, personally I would NEVER thank them for their letter!

    I would start:

    'I refer to your unsolicited, misleading and aggressively-worded letter dated ....'
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 22-07-2017 at 9:44 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • denchgang9
    • By denchgang9 22nd Jul 17, 9:10 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    denchgang9
    • #3
    • 22nd Jul 17, 9:10 PM
    • #3
    • 22nd Jul 17, 9:10 PM
    Thank you for the guidance! Great example.

    My only concern here is that it seems that example is in response to the initial letter from Wright Hassall whereas I've now received a second letter, a "Formal Letter of Claim" - is this example from Jonersh still the appropriate response?

    I can't attach an image so dropbox link to the scanned copy of the letter I refer to here: I've got 10 days left to respond! Perhaps someone can upload this as an image for ease if needs be:

    dropbox.com/s/222z89rgx5h5il6/Wright%20Hassall%20Letter%20of%20Claim.jpg?dl=0

    Jonersh disputes the points which come in the letter prior to the one I've attached above (re: the credit rating / bailiffs / future borrowing threats..)

    Thank you in advance (note, I will no longer be thanking them for their letter! I'm too soft sometimes haha)
    • denchgang9
    • By denchgang9 22nd Jul 17, 9:15 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    denchgang9
    • #4
    • 22nd Jul 17, 9:15 PM
    • #4
    • 22nd Jul 17, 9:15 PM
    Ignore my above post, I was being dense - they still make the same threats in this letter....


    My draft below, any tweaks appreciated!

    Am I right in thinking to send this to the managing partner of WH (Sarah Perry) ? Assuming Tim Hawker is useless to email as he isn't even on their site...


    Draft with a slight change in intro, feedback would be fantastic:

    I refer to your correspondence of [date]. First, the alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

    Second, I deny any debt with you. The driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue me as the registered keeper of this vehicle.

    I wish to make a complaint on the basis that your letter is threatening, misleading as to the law and an abuse of the process of debt recovery. I refer to Law Society Warning Notice 11/06/2013 ("the Warning Notice").

    To the extent that the correspondence may have been sent by a third party, the letter is on Wright Hassall letterhead and the firm is responsible for the content. I wish to raise the following points:

    1. Your letter states you or agents on behalf of your client will seek to obtain a CCJ which may affect
    1.1. My ability to obtain credit
    1.2. My ability to borrow funds
    1.3 My ability to obtain employment
    1.4. Be subject to bailiff enforcement or an attachment of earnings order.

    All of the above points are misleading as to the position and may impair access to justice. The Court will determine any dispute if proceedings are commenced. In the event that a Judgment is awarded in your client's favour none of the above will occur provided that the Judgment is paid promptly. This is not made clear precisely to prompt the recipient into early payment and to discourage any defence of the action (however meritorious).

    2. The full extent of Court enforcement is set out within the letter in a manner which is aggressive and intimidation without making the process of debt recovery clear (in clear disregard of the Warning Notice).

    3. Your correspondence gives rise to no consideration of the recipient's position or any defence of the proposed action or consideration of negotiated settlement, only payment of the debt, which is neither admitted nor proven

    4. At £236 the debt sought would appear to be set at a level beyond that which is likely to be recoverable in the small claims court (or at all) and may therefore misstate the correct legal position regarding the recovery of the parking charge in this matter, were your client to be successful.

    5. The letter received appears to come from an individual who purports to be Head of Debt Recovery at Wright Hassall. Despite this, he is not listed on the firm's website and is not a registered solicitor. It is unclear as to what his position is or if he exists. It is further not clear that Wright Hassall have appropriately represented their status as required by the Warning Notice.

    We expect you to accurately and openly represent your authority/status in all communications, and to convey in those communications the correct legal position with regard to debts and the debt recovery process.

    I look forward to hearing from you.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Jul 17, 9:58 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,064 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 22nd Jul 17, 9:58 PM
    • #5
    • 22nd Jul 17, 9:58 PM
    Your WH letter of misleading drivel is here:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/222z89rgx5h5il6/Wright%20Hassall%20Letter%20of%20Claim.jpg?dl=0

    It's clearly a debt collector letter from ZZPS again, so yes I would address your reply to a Managing Partner, and copy in your MP and Trading Standards too, please, as we need to raise awareness every time about this scam, and now is a GOOD time!

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72869191#post72869191

    Make it clear that your MP, and local Council Trading Standards, have been copied in by listing all recipients at the top.

    I would start:

    I refer to your correspondence of [date] which suggests to me that either a quantity of Wright Hassall headed notepaper has been purloined by ZZPS, or that the writer (if an employee of Wright Hassall) has had no training as regard UK law applying to debt recovery.

    First, the alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended. I note that Wright Hassall does not appear to act for Civil Enforcement in any court claims to date that are in the public domain. This letter is littered with falsehoods and misleading and aggressive statements, yet I understand that your firm do not act for the purported creditor, at all.
    and at the end, give them a timescale:

    I look forward to hearing from you and expect a proper response befitting a firm of solicitors replying to a formal complaint about such a serious neglect of your duty to consumers and to the courts, within 14 days of the date of this letter. You will note that I have copied in my MP and local Trading Standards.
    In the copy you post to your MP and to Trading Standards, attach a copy of both WH letters you received, and the ZZPS letter chain too, so they can see the entire threatogram chain and how ZZPS fit into this. Also show them the Hansard record about the proposed Bill and make it clear to your MP that you are relying on him/her to help kill off the scam of private parking firm rip-offs once and for all.

    To Trading Standards, you will need a covering letter to explain the complaint about the parking firm and the misleading threats their agents are sending, contrary to consumer law and debt collection regulations.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 22-08-2017 at 11:24 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • denchgang9
    • By denchgang9 23rd Jul 17, 12:42 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    denchgang9
    • #6
    • 23rd Jul 17, 12:42 PM
    • #6
    • 23rd Jul 17, 12:42 PM
    Thank you so much for this! I will get this finalised and sent out today.

    I saw your post on another thread: forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5673397

    Is it worth me firing off this same letter you drafted to Civil Enforcement too at this stage in response to their earlier letters which I initially ignored, simply to prevent them from proceeding to claims and me having to draft a defence etc which will take longer? (Obviously I'd have to remove the last paragraph re: the disabled passenger)

    Thanks again, I struggled to sleep when I got that last letter but the guidance on these threads are giving me hope!!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Jul 17, 7:47 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,064 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 23rd Jul 17, 7:47 PM
    • #7
    • 23rd Jul 17, 7:47 PM
    Yes, go for it, CEL don't seem to like that sort of letter!

    Send it direct to CEL and include a sentence or two explaining that:

    I consider the pseudo debt collector letter chain including fake solicitors letters to be harassment and am writing to you to as the originator, to demand that you cease and desist.

    By continuing to pursue me for this disputed debt, you are in breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. If any more contact is made, from you or your worthless agents, I reserve the right to sue you for damages under the Act, relying upon Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46, as part of my claim.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • denchgang9
    • By denchgang9 9th Aug 17, 5:26 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    denchgang9
    • #8
    • 9th Aug 17, 5:26 PM
    Response received from CEL!
    • #8
    • 9th Aug 17, 5:26 PM
    Hello!

    Hope this finds you well

    Just fyi, I received a response finally from CEL upon actioning the above posts.

    Simply, just wondered if this means I'm in the clear or if "court proceedings" could still be in the pipeline?

    The letter from CEL:
    "We refer to your recent correspondence.
    This Enforcement Notice has been passed over to a Debt Recovery agent as Civil Enforcement Ltd are no longer dealing with the PCN. Please contact the Debt Recover agent directly in regards to PCN. All further communication in regards to this must be directed to ZZPS only."

    If I understood correctly from past threads, ZZPS don't really have any power here?!

    Wright Hassall have acknowledged my complaint about the misleading letters etc, haven't had a conclusion from their complaint team yet however.

    Where do I stand now?!
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 9th Aug 17, 6:51 PM
    • 1,071 Posts
    • 2,073 Thanks
    Johnersh
    • #9
    • 9th Aug 17, 6:51 PM
    • #9
    • 9th Aug 17, 6:51 PM
    Noted. Let us know when you hear from ZZPS and what they have to say. They are merely a debt collection arm and linked to Wright Hassall. For now, I would continue to wait and see.

    One might expect a response from WH before you hear from ZZPS substantively or get a proper letter of claim. Obviously if they do pursue it to court, you will make sure the complaint (and any response) is in the trial bundle, won't you?
    • denchgang9
    • By denchgang9 22nd Aug 17, 3:26 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    denchgang9
    So Wright Hassall have now responded to my complaint! (still nothing from ZZPS)

    In a nutshell, they've just dismissed any complaint and said they won't reply to me anymore (hahaha)

    Looks like they aren't backing down though, was hoping I wouldn't have to prep a defence but looks like they may still make a claim

    Still can't upload images but I've scanned their response and put on dropbox here: dropbox.com/sh/t71q5rd2b2esneu/AADB-zOroNqgrM_r6un34b_aa?dl=0

    Of course there's no use in responding to them now - assuming I just wait for if/when a proper "letter of claim" comes through... If there's anything I should be doing now please let me know!

    Thanks again for all the guidance guys, what a world we live in! You are legends.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 22nd Aug 17, 6:00 PM
    • 1,071 Posts
    • 2,073 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Well it's not a matter for them is it? It's more a matter for the regulator (SRA) and the Court to determine whether that letter was threatening.

    Actually there is no duty on them to provide legal advice to you at all or caution that they may end up with a CCJ. Further to suggest that enforcement action would be taken before they have secured judgment is pretty misleading.

    Nothing in my letters (before anyone amends them) has ever suggested anybody's actions are illegal (unless they are). Here the allegation is a potential breach of conduct rules, nothing more.

    Going forward....
    1. Do be sure to provide to the Court all automated template correspondence from the Defendant - particularly all failures to respond to questions and documents.

    2. Assuming you get template Particulars of Claim sent to you in due course, you may wish to rely on the Wright Hassall letter to point out to the Court that this is the very approach (use of templates) that they object to and suggest is worthy of strike out, so you do so on the basis that it cannot possibly be good enough. To do otherwise would be to compromise principles of equality between the Parties.

    3. Distasteful though it may be for them, as an individual without a legal qualification you might want to get some help; it does not follow that seeking advice on the internet immediately disqualifies you from pursuit of an appropriate defence
    • denchgang9
    • By denchgang9 8th Jan 18, 4:48 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    denchgang9
    Hello friends,

    Do I need to reply to this?!
    (unable to post links but I've uploaded it to dropbox - dropbox.com/s/g1dulew0eketbc9/CEL%20letter%20of%205%20Jan%202018.jpg?dl=0 )

    Any guidance on whether I need to start prepping defence would be helpful, not looking forward to doing this at all but I've read MANY recent posts on here and I refuse to be an annoying "pls spoon feed me" newbie.

    If there's any links that you think may be of use at this stage in my process, please do point me in the right direction - appreciate you guys will see plenty of repetitive messages on here and I'll do my best to learn all I can from previous threads and keep my posts minimal.

    Many thanks
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 8th Jan 18, 4:52 PM
    • 2,419 Posts
    • 4,311 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Do I need to reply to this?!
    No but file it.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th Jan 18, 5:21 PM
    • 18,031 Posts
    • 28,557 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/g1dulew0eketbc9/CEL%20letter%20of%205%20Jan%202018.jpg?dl=0%20)

    IamEmanresu!!!8217;s advice is good.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • denchgang9
    • By denchgang9 15th Mar 18, 1:01 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    denchgang9
    HELLO,

    Guess who has just received a Claim form...

    I've read multiple threads now and am a bit lost on next steps - clearly I need to respond to this one!

    Firstly, do I have a leg to stand on here....
    - Never received the initial PCN from CEL which claims to have been submitted end of 2016... My first ever correspondence came over 2 months later as a "final reminder before legal action" from CEL with a ridiculous £100 fee... I never even had an option to pay the original PCN, even if I had been in the wrong!?

    - I did email them back then and have proof of this requesting to see the original PCN and evidence of the incident, they never responded.

    - I have since received letters from ZZPS (all ignored), Wright Hassall etc...

    - The "incident" occurred on a Bank Holiday... though the sign in smallprint (having revisited the site) shows parking needs to paid all year round - should this be mentioned in defence?
    we do not actually know who was driving at the time

    - PCN has been sent to the RK

    -ANPR technology used, no pictures have been sent to me to prove this of my vehicle/driver however



    Would it be sensible to dispute the entirety of this claim? I'm concerned about a CCJ, however the principle of paying what is now £300+ to these clowns is disgusting.

    Please advise on submitting an appropriate defence?

    I have information overload from the number of threads I've read and each case is somewhat unique in itself, this is the only reason I'm asking.


    Would something like the below be sufficient / applicable to my case?

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited
    V
    XXXXXXXXXXX




    Claim Number: XXXXXXXX




    I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
    The Claim Form issued on X/XX/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 !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221;.

    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.


    There was no compliant !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217;, under the Practice Direction.

    This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

    The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

    The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217; should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction !!!8211; Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to !!!8220;take stock!!!8221;, 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:
    !!!8216;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
    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
    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
    support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.!!!8217;

    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.

    Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
    Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
    A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
    Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

    Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

    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 !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; 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 it is believed that neither the signs, nor any NTK mentioned a possible additional £XXX for outstanding debt and damages.

    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!!!8217;s (or even admin) costs!!!8217; were incurred.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    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.
    Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    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.
    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.
    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.
    The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 15 months 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 keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.


    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on Xth XXXXX 2017.
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Mar 18, 12:12 AM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,064 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    do I have a leg to stand on here....
    It's CEL, of course, they always discontinue in every case we've seen defended here...

    ...except one this week, where the OP didn't notice that a court letter said the case would be decided ''on the papers'' (no hearing) and the poster failed to object and missed insisting on their day in court, and the Brighton Judge made a (seemingly certainly wrong - given the POFA) decision...based on the papers only.

    Otherwise, ALL win v CEL, all discontinued thus far. The scam is almost over, no need to worry.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-03-2018 at 12:19 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 16th Mar 18, 10:07 AM
    • 2,765 Posts
    • 3,442 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    NEWBIES thread
    Post 2. Read it. Read it again. Then a third time. Every single step is explained there.

    First step will be to acknoweldge the claim. This gives you 33 days from the ISSUE DATE on the form. Whats the issue date?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,312Posts Today

7,576Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ah these care free days of watching #ENG score 5 goals in the first half of a World Cup match. It reminds me of... Never.

  • Then it should be. It's not some accident. It's deliberate grappling https://t.co/UxVTuUSNio

  • Penalty yes but time someone was sent off for these wrestling moves #WorldCup

  • Follow Martin