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
    • CEHELL
    • By CEHELL 13th Mar 18, 8:57 AM
    • 9Posts
    • 1Thanks
    CEHELL
    CEL County Court Claim
    • #1
    • 13th Mar 18, 8:57 AM
    CEL County Court Claim 13th Mar 18 at 8:57 AM
    Good Morning Everybody!

    Didn't think CEL would chase so hard for this, but I received a County Court Claims Form 2 weeks ago whilst I was on holiday. I came back on Sunday and have opened it and have managed to fill in the AOS before the deadline (Issue date was 26th of February and I filed the AOS on the 12th of March).

    The claim form has the particulars of claim already filled in (it won't let me post a link so maybe it will let me in the comments)

    The particulars of the case are the driver was visiting a local gym to the area who have an agreement with the particular hotel to allow their customers to park, this was a new system in place and the driver was unaware of the new parking regulation. They've spoken to the gym and they say there is nothing they can do.

    So going forward now and from reading the newbie thread I need to start putting together a defense, by looking through old threads (if anyone has any that will be of use to me please let me know).

    I'm also tempted to contact the hotel and see if I can get them to remove it but with it being over a year ago and the first time I'll have been in contact I'm unsure this would work.

    Just for reference (and so you can gauge / laugh at my stupidity) I ignored and have thrown away all notices, bailiff letters, solicitors letters etc, so I'm not sure if that helps at all.

    Thank in advance for all your help and this great forum!
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Mar 18, 9:02 AM
    • 9,203 Posts
    • 8,968 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 13th Mar 18, 9:02 AM
    • #2
    • 13th Mar 18, 9:02 AM
    They invariably cry wolf at the courtroom steps.

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/civil-enforcement-limited-discontinue.html

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose) and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    Last edited by The Deep; 13-03-2018 at 9:07 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • CEHELL
    • By CEHELL 13th Mar 18, 9:04 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    CEHELL
    • #3
    • 13th Mar 18, 9:04 AM
    • #3
    • 13th Mar 18, 9:04 AM
    They invariably cry wolf at the courtroom steps.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    I'm hoping they will, 14 days to get something in writing and back to them!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Mar 18, 9:11 AM
    • 17,562 Posts
    • 27,763 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 13th Mar 18, 9:11 AM
    • #4
    • 13th Mar 18, 9:11 AM
    I'm hoping they will, 14 days to get something in writing and back to them!
    Originally posted by CEHELL
    You have 33 days from the date of issue on the court claim form - 28 days plus 5 days for service. But best not sail too close to the wind on deadlines.

    I need to start putting together a defense
    I'd start putting together a defence, unless you plan to nominate a courtroom location in the USA for your hearing.
    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.
    • CEHELL
    • By CEHELL 13th Mar 18, 9:22 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    CEHELL
    • #5
    • 13th Mar 18, 9:22 AM
    • #5
    • 13th Mar 18, 9:22 AM
    You have 33 days from the date of issue on the court claim form - 28 days plus 5 days for service. But best not sail too close to the wind on deadlines.

    Thanks, I'll give myself the week to get it drafted.


    I'd start putting together a defence, unless you plan to nominate a courtroom location in the USA for your hearing.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Well at least when I win I'll have some nice costs to claim back!
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Mar 18, 10:26 AM
    • 9,203 Posts
    • 8,968 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 13th Mar 18, 10:26 AM
    • #6
    • 13th Mar 18, 10:26 AM
    Only if they behave unreasonably, the judge thinks that they have behaved unreasonably, and you can argue the hind leg off a donkey.

    http://becket-chambers.co.uk/2017/05/24/acid-test-unreasonable-acts-unreasonable-behaviour-costs-small-claims-track/
    Last edited by The Deep; 13-03-2018 at 10:30 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 13th Mar 18, 10:32 AM
    • 934 Posts
    • 727 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    • #7
    • 13th Mar 18, 10:32 AM
    • #7
    • 13th Mar 18, 10:32 AM
    Excelleny link, deep
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • CEHELL
    • By CEHELL 14th Mar 18, 8:52 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    CEHELL
    • #8
    • 14th Mar 18, 8:52 AM
    • #8
    • 14th Mar 18, 8:52 AM
    So continuing to read the information on the Newbies thread! (There's so much).

    In the Particulars of Claims all I have is ...

    Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the T&Cs. Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T&Cs of use. ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering and exiting the site. Debt + damages claimed the sum of 236.00
    Violation date : xx/xx/2017
    Time in 18:03 Time out 19:00
    PCN reference Refxxxxxxxx
    Car reg - xxxxxxx
    Car Park - Place name.

    Total Due 236.00
    Then some references to amounts and interest.

    Is this all I should receive or will there be addition info to follow? - any ideas anyone?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th Mar 18, 9:09 AM
    • 2,430 Posts
    • 2,980 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #9
    • 14th Mar 18, 9:09 AM
    • #9
    • 14th Mar 18, 9:09 AM
    You know whether you will receive more - it will have said "further particlaurs of claim to follow within 14 days"
    If it doesnt, there is going to be nothing more

    You dont need more howegver. Just find a CEL defence from April 2017 onwards, and adapt to your details.
    • CEHELL
    • By CEHELL 14th Mar 18, 9:13 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    CEHELL
    You know whether you will receive more - it will have said "further particlaurs of claim to follow within 14 days"
    If it doesnt, there is going to be nothing more

    You dont need more howegver. Just find a CEL defence from April 2017 onwards, and adapt to your details.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    It doesn't, so thanks! I'll have a search around!
    • CEHELL
    • By CEHELL 14th Mar 18, 10:05 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    CEHELL
    How's this looking as a first draft?

    In the County Court Business Centre

    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited
    vs
    xxxxxxxxxx

    Regarding claim number xxxxxxxxxx

    I xxxxxxxxxxxx deny that I am liable to the claimant for the entirety of this claim for each of the following reasons:
    1. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case.
    2. The signage is not adequate and does not offer a contract with the motorist.
    4. Claim not correctly filed under The Practice Direction
    5. Falsified solicitor costs
    6. Claimant failed to meet Notice to Keeper obligations


    1. The claimant has no standing to bring a case.

    a. The particulars of claim state that !!!8220;At all material times, the Claimant managed the car park.!!!8221; They are therefore acting as agents of the landowner.

    b. 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.

    2. The claimant claims that the defendant is in breach of the T&Cs in which drivers are allowed to park in condition with. But the signage does not offer a contract and is also poorly light.

    a. The signage at the sign entrance is sparse, with no mention of the terms and conditions of the car park or the penalty of breaching the terms, violating POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice.

    b. The small print on the signage does not allow the driver of any vehicle to read the terms and conditions of the car park until they are already in the car park and have been photographed by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera. There is no opportunity to make a decision not to enter the car park after reading the signs.

    c. The alleged contract is unfair, not agreed by the driver, and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation'.

    d. 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.

    e. 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 !!!8220;contract!!!8221;, none of this applies in this material case.


    4. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) by;

    a. Not providing a copy of the alleged contract to the Defendant. This prevents a full defence being filed at this time as 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.

    b. Failing to issue a compliant notice to keeper within 14 days under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 such that Claimant is unable to hold the Defendant liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions.

    c. Issuing a sparse, mail-merged and non-compliant !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217;, under the Practice Direction. 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 contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017).

    d. A Schedule of information sparse of detailed information.

    5. The Claim Form issued on 26/02/2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as;

    a. It was not signed by a legal person but signed by !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221; (claimants legal representative).

    b. It failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 26/02/2018.

    c. 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.

    d. 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 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:

    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.

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

    6. The claim includes a sum of 50, described as !!!8216;Legal representative!!!8217;s costs!!!8217;. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant. Given a standard working week, the claimant!!!8217;s legal representative can spend no more than a few minutes per claim, hardly justifying the 50. Since these are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant maintains case notes for each person who has accessed the case, and it is suggested this would be sufficient. The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen!!!8217;s Letter Patent (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no !!!8216;expert services!!!8217; are involved. The 50 is not valid because it is not incurred by the claimant.

    7. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absence of such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions. Additionally, the Claimant has been known in other cases to specifically state during the appeal period, that they would not be relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, waiving their right to seek keeper liability. The Defendant is not therefore liable for the claim and invites the court to strike it out. 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 Deep
    • By The Deep 14th Mar 18, 11:09 AM
    • 9,203 Posts
    • 8,968 Thanks
    The Deep
    Please start your own thread but read this now.


    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose) and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Mar 18, 5:33 PM
    • 57,327 Posts
    • 70,927 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    How's this looking as a first draft?
    Originally posted by CEHELL
    You need to add a statement of truth at the bottom.

    Do not rush it.

    Reply again if you amend it, after you've read loads of other examples, defences are everywhere.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-03-2018 at 10:27 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.

    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 14th Mar 18, 5:49 PM
    • 2,660 Posts
    • 1,522 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    You need to ask slou1983 to delete their post, it's stopping you getting advice.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    OP Just send a PM to Crabman, Savvy or Soolin and ask them to deal with it for the reasons stated by C-M.
    • CEHELL
    • By CEHELL 18th May 18, 10:30 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    CEHELL
    No copy of the defence?
    Hi guys,

    I now have a Notice of Proposed Allocation, with the Direct Questionnaire to be filled in.

    But it has no copy of the defence and has the text on the letter crossed out stating a copy of it is enclosed?

    What's the procedure here? Fill in the form and send it back and wait?

    Thanks for your help.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 18th May 18, 10:33 AM
    • 35,556 Posts
    • 19,760 Thanks
    Quentin
    Hopefully you kept your own copy!


    See #2 in the newbies faq thread for a walkthrough on the pre hearing procedure
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th May 18, 10:36 AM
    • 57,327 Posts
    • 70,927 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Obviously they are not sending you the Defendant, a copy of your own defence! You know what to do at this stage, and every stage, because you've read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.
    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.

    • CEHELL
    • By CEHELL 18th May 18, 10:39 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    CEHELL
    Woops
    Ah yeah! A bit of a brain fart there,

    I of course have a copy and I'm sure it's uploaded.

    Do they have to provide anything to me? I have none of their 'evidence' etc?

    Should I expect something?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 18th May 18, 10:40 AM
    • 35,556 Posts
    • 19,760 Thanks
    Quentin
    You have their POC don't you?


    (Your defence must have uploaded - otherwise this would not be a "defended claim")


    That allocation form is sent to both sides - so the claimant will have got one without "defence enclosed" crossed out!
    Last edited by Quentin; 18-05-2018 at 10:43 AM.
    • CEHELL
    • By CEHELL 18th May 18, 10:56 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    CEHELL
    This is all I have as the POC...

    Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the T&Cs. Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T&Cs of use. ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering and exiting the site. Debt + damages claimed the sum of 236.00
    Violation date : xx/xx/2017
    Time in 18:03 Time out 19:00
    PCN reference Refxxxxxxxx
    Car reg - xxxxxxx
    Car Park - Place name.

    Total Due 236.00
    Then some references to amounts and interest.
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

405Posts Today

4,874Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin