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@.

    • eluni
    • By eluni 8th Oct 17, 10:43 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 0Thanks
    country court claim form
    • #1
    • 8th Oct 17, 10:43 PM
    country court claim form 8th Oct 17 at 10:43 PM
    hi there
    I read newbies post and lots of different ones about civil enforcement..
    I did get a ticket for overstaying on a parking next to McDonalds in Gateshead...but i read on forum to ignore it. Two years after I received a claim form from county court in Northampton...
    so, I acknowledge the claim on MCOL website and copied a draft of court claim defence.
    Would you please have a look and let me know is it ok to send it?
    also I got a question...what if I will have to go to court - what chances are i will win?
    here is a draft of "my defence statement"

    NN1 2LH

    Claim number:

    I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.

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

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

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And 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.

    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 badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

    c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

    d) 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.

    e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

    f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

    (i) 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
    (ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    (iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    (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 as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) 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 £323.26 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. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.!

    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.

    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 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. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.!

    9. 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.

    10. 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 12th June 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.

    Do I need to change anything or thats ok to go?
    any help would be appreciated
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 8th Oct 17, 11:18 PM
    • 18,310 Posts
    • 23,194 Thanks
    • #2
    • 8th Oct 17, 11:18 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Oct 17, 11:18 PM
    edit your last post to remove any hint of who was driving

    NOBODY can tell you your chances of winning , but with a good defence they may well fold long before any court date

    your defence will centre on being the keeper, driver not revealed , POFA2012 failures etc
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 9th Oct 17, 12:05 AM
    • 1,353 Posts
    • 2,711 Thanks
    • #3
    • 9th Oct 17, 12:05 AM
    • #3
    • 9th Oct 17, 12:05 AM
    but i read on forum to ignore it.
    Not on this forum you didn't - not since 2012

    You must do as Redx advises and edit your comment above where it refers to who was driving. Refer only to "The Driver"

    It's a good defence - covers all the main points but have you 'sense checked' it to ensure it's appropriate to the circumstances of your case? It looks like you've just copied and pasted the entire thing.

    This for example may not apply:
    "(ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice"
    CEL signs usually do have the ANPR warning.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Oct 17, 12:06 PM
    • 17,981 Posts
    • 28,462 Thanks
    • #4
    • 9th Oct 17, 12:06 PM
    • #4
    • 9th Oct 17, 12:06 PM
    I!!!8217;m a bit concerned that this !!!8216;defence!!!8217; might have not been checked thoroughly. For example, this £ figure has been included in many other defences.

    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 £323.26 for outstanding debt and damages.
    @OP - can you confirm this is the amount shown in your court papers? Also please confirm the !!!8216;Civil Enforcement Ltd!!!8217; are the parking company involved, because MET Parking are the normal PPC covering McD!!!8217;s premises.
    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.
    • eluni
    • By eluni 9th Oct 17, 2:18 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    • #5
    • 9th Oct 17, 2:18 PM
    • #5
    • 9th Oct 17, 2:18 PM
    thank you so much for your time so far. yes I just copied someones draft - thats why in my first post I wrote
    here is a draft of "my defence statement"
    I just wanted to check if thats still correct way of doing it. .

    I have no idea how to deal with this so thats why I am asking you wise people for help...I dont even understand half of the wording in this statement...
    we got a letter from civil enforcement, parking is not directly next to Mc, is the only one around..
    Last edited by eluni; 09-10-2017 at 6:05 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Oct 17, 2:31 PM
    • 7,658 Posts
    • 7,365 Thanks
    • #6
    • 9th Oct 17, 2:31 PM
    • #6
    • 9th Oct 17, 2:31 PM

    You need to edit the fifth line of your post to remove any clues of who the driver might be - just delete the last seven words.
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

1,199Posts Today

7,585Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Nearly at the Cheshire Show. Doing an @itvMLshow there today and tomorrow. Do say hi if you're there or ask a question.

  • Good morning. I'm on the train to go to the Cheshire Show today to film for an @itvmlshow Roadshow. Looking forwa?

  • Early days, but so far a huge majority - 19 in 20 people - support legalising cannabis for medical use. Whereas t?

  • Follow Martin