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
    • Darkin43
    • By Darkin43 31st Jan 18, 7:59 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Darkin43
    Civil Enforcement Limited Claim Form
    • #1
    • 31st Jan 18, 7:59 PM
    Civil Enforcement Limited Claim Form 31st Jan 18 at 7:59 PM
    Hi, ive been reading through all the threads on here involving CEL claim forms. I was given a PCN on 10/03/17 and i was given information by friends and relatives to ignore the numerous threatening letters i received after. Ive now been served with a CEL claim form saying i owe 328.22 and will be taken to county court. Ive signed up to the MCOL website and posted my AOS (going from the advice ive read) i am just unsure as to what happens from now and when i should submit my defence.

    Any advice would be most appreciated

    Thanks Rob
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 31st Jan 18, 8:07 PM
    • 6,713 Posts
    • 5,955 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 31st Jan 18, 8:07 PM
    • #2
    • 31st Jan 18, 8:07 PM
    If you've read all the CEL threads you must have a very good idea about what's going on.

    What you should now be doing is reading post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. That will guide you through every step of the process.
    In particular read Bargepole's step by step guidance linked from that post #2.

    As you have acknowledged service of the claim, you now have thirty five three days from the date of issue of the claim to submit your defence.

    There are dozens of recent CEL defences available on here.
    Last edited by KeithP; 31-01-2018 at 9:15 PM.
    .
    • Castle
    • By Castle 31st Jan 18, 8:35 PM
    • 1,649 Posts
    • 2,220 Thanks
    Castle
    • #3
    • 31st Jan 18, 8:35 PM
    • #3
    • 31st Jan 18, 8:35 PM

    As you have acknowledged service of the claim, you now have thirty five days from the date of issue of the claim to submit your defence.

    There are dozens of recent CEL defences available on here.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Actually it's 33 days; (5 for service + 28 days).
    • Darkin43
    • By Darkin43 31st Jan 18, 8:37 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Darkin43
    • #4
    • 31st Jan 18, 8:37 PM
    • #4
    • 31st Jan 18, 8:37 PM
    Thanks for the reply so fast!

    Ive just read through both of the points you pointed out in the Newbies thread. But im still unsure about when to send my defence. Is there a certain amount of time to wait? Or do i wait for them to acknowledge my AOS in some way?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 31st Jan 18, 8:41 PM
    • 35,191 Posts
    • 19,308 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #5
    • 31st Jan 18, 8:41 PM
    • #5
    • 31st Jan 18, 8:41 PM
    Send it when you are happy with it. Don't miss the deadline but no reason to send it in asap.


    Once it's submitted making changes is not straightforward
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Feb 18, 1:23 AM
    • 56,350 Posts
    • 69,955 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 1st Feb 18, 1:23 AM
    • #6
    • 1st Feb 18, 1:23 AM
    You get NO acknowledgement of AOS, so don't wait for something, because nothing arrives; the ball is in your court.
    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.

    • Darkin43
    • By Darkin43 13th Feb 18, 7:53 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Darkin43
    • #7
    • 13th Feb 18, 7:53 PM
    • #7
    • 13th Feb 18, 7:53 PM
    Hi, If anyone could please comment on how i can improve my defence in this case it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks

    IN THE COUNTY COURT NORTHAMPTON

    CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    ________________________________________

    I am xxx, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle xxxx. I currently reside at xxxx.

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

    1. The Claim Form issued on the 30th January by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant!!!8217;s Legal Representative)

    2. 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.

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

    b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical !!!8216;draft particulars!!!8217; 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. Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the Letter before County Court Claim should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction - Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to take stock 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:

    (i) 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

    (ii) 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

    (iii) 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

    (iv) support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

    e. 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.

    f. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars 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.

    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 i.e breakdown of damages incurred and evidence of such damages.

    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 a 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 !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; and !!!8216;relevant contract!!!8217; 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 add that on as well when it is believed that neither the signs, nor the NTK mentioned a possible 253.22 for outstanding debt and damages.

    4 . 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 this claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage !!!8216;contract!!!8217; none of this applies in this material case.

    5. 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 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. 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 an authorised party using the premises as intended.

    iii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer neither known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

    iv. 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

    6. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name the driver. The Defendant in this case is defending the claim as the registered keeper of the vehicle, not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention as is their right. The Defendant asks the Claimant to prove that the defendant was in fact driving the vehicle at the relevant time.

    7. No standing this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement Ltd 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. This distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.

    8. 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.

    9. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification.

    10. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has 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. 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 a 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:

    (a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 30th January 2018.
    (b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste Particulars of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis/Vine v Waltham Forest) 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 believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."





    XXXXXXXX signed

    Date
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Feb 18, 7:57 PM
    • 9,095 Posts
    • 8,809 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #8
    • 13th Feb 18, 7:57 PM
    • #8
    • 13th Feb 18, 7:57 PM
    That will slow them down.

    Make life harder for them by complaining about their excessive demands to the SRA and to your MP after watching this video.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
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

741Posts Today

6,051Users online

Martin's Twitter