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@.

    • Rainbow dash
    • By Rainbow dash 13th Mar 18, 6:46 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Rainbow dash
    Claim Form received from CEL
    • #1
    • 13th Mar 18, 6:46 PM
    Claim Form received from CEL 13th Mar 18 at 6:46 PM
    I'm hoping you can advise me on writing a defense statement for a Court Claim from Civil Enforcement Ltd.
    Here's my situation in a nutshell:
    1. Original PCN did not arrive according to the BPA CoP (however, I wasn't aware of this until much later so didn't appeal- I ignored it instead)
    2. After receiving various Reminders and Debt Collector's letters, I received Solicitor's letter so I emailed (after researching on here and realising I should have done this ages ago) saying I wasn't the driver and wasn't obligated to tell them who was and that they were in breach of the BPA's COP. I received a reply email saying they would inform their client. I then heard nothing for 6 months.
    3. I received a claim form with the POC detailed. Date of issue 8/3/18, I received it 9/3/18
    4.I have read absolutely EVERYTHING on this forum I think since last Friday including the NEWBIES Sticky and the guide the MCOL and how to acknowledge service, which I have done online today.
    So... here's my defense, I would be so grateful if you could take a look (to be honest there a a few things in here that I don't fully understand so I'm not sure if they apply to me or not so if someone could explain the statements in RED, then at least I can decide whether it needs to be in there or notplus, I have seen numbers in the place of apostrophes in so many people's draft defenses... is this right?):

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Civil Enforcement Limited

    Claim Number: XXXXXXXX

    I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
    1. The Defendant denies being the driver of the car on the day and place in question and has notified the Claimant’s solicitors of this. This therefore does not meet the notice of keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Defendant is not therefore liable for the claim and invites the court to strike it out.

    2. The Claim Form issued on 8/3/2018 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

    3. 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 defense 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 defense. 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.

    i. There was no compliant !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217;, under the Practice Direction.
    ii. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
    iii. The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
    iv. 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.
    v. 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:
    a. !!!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
    b. 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
    c. 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
    d. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.!!!8217;
    vi. The Defendant 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.
    vii. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
    a. 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
    b. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    c. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    d. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
    e. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    f. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    g. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
    viii. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defense.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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 license 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.
    8. 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. 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 authorized party using the premises as intended.
    iii. 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.
    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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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 12 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 8th March 2018.
    • 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.

    I have made sure that on my actual draft on Word, it has 1.5 spacing, font 12pt of Times New Roman.

    I am unsure about number 4. as it seems a repeat of number 1...?
    iv. of point number 3... I don't know whether the particulars of the claim on the form are sufficiently detailed or not, having never seen one of these before it's hard to know. POC they have put down are:

    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: 20/3/2017
    Time in: 13:00 Time out:15:11
    Car Reg: XXXXXXX Car Park: XXXXXXXXX
    Total due: 236.00
    The claimant claims the sum of 254.21 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 18.21 interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984
    Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to 7/3/18
    Same rate to Judgement or payment
    Daily rate to Judgement - 0.05
    Total debt and interest due - 254.21[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Page 1
    • Rainbow dash
    • By Rainbow dash 13th Mar 18, 6:50 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Rainbow dash
    • #2
    • 13th Mar 18, 6:50 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Mar 18, 6:50 PM
    I've just realised that the highlighted red statements didn't copy
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Mar 18, 6:59 PM
    • 7,258 Posts
    • 6,782 Thanks
    • #3
    • 13th Mar 18, 6:59 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Mar 18, 6:59 PM
    I have made sure that on my actual draft on Word, it has 1.5 spacing, font 12pt of Times New Roman.
    That's good to see.
    Does your master on Word have Defence spelt correctly?

    Also, be careful when copying from Word.
    Do not copy to the forum directly from Word, but go via Notepad.
    See here:
    Last edited by KeithP; 13-03-2018 at 7:01 PM.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Mar 18, 7:28 PM
    • 9,209 Posts
    • 8,980 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 13th Mar 18, 7:28 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Mar 18, 7:28 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors..

    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.

    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.
    • Rainbow dash
    • By Rainbow dash 13th Mar 18, 7:50 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Rainbow dash
    • #5
    • 13th Mar 18, 7:50 PM
    • #5
    • 13th Mar 18, 7:50 PM
    Ooops! I don!!!8217;t know what my brain was thinking !!!55357;!!!56854; thank you KeithP for pointing it out.

    So do you think the points are all relevant to my situation?
    • Rainbow dash
    • By Rainbow dash 14th Mar 18, 12:25 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Rainbow dash
    • #6
    • 14th Mar 18, 12:25 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Mar 18, 12:25 PM
    Is anyone available to help with my defence statement? Any help with what their PoC are would be great?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th Mar 18, 1:53 PM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    • #7
    • 14th Mar 18, 1:53 PM
    • #7
    • 14th Mar 18, 1:53 PM
    It isnt a stateent, it is a defence, nothing more

    Have you looked at the dozens of CEL threads, copied the April 2017 onwards defences, and edited it to fit? Then youre likely good to go.

    No idea what ytou wnat help with their POC for - they are also a template, used in every claim.
    • Rainbow dash
    • By Rainbow dash 14th Mar 18, 2:44 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Rainbow dash
    • #8
    • 14th Mar 18, 2:44 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Mar 18, 2:44 PM
    Thanks for your input.... having never seen a POC form before, I was unsure if what they had included were in fact 'sparse' and 'a template' as in many other threads Id read about CEL say that they leave that bit blank and then send you particulars later on.

    I have read the dozens of CEL posts and tailored my defence to the best of my ability, but there were a few points where I wasn't sure if they applied to me or not because I did not understand the wording.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Mar 18, 5:19 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    • #9
    • 14th Mar 18, 5:19 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Mar 18, 5:19 PM
    Needs to be headed 'DEFENCE' and you then sign a paper copy, scan that and email the signed version to the CCBCAQ email address easily found on the courts website or here on the forum umpteen zillion times.

    Then be ready for the DQ, and read other CEL threads to see they STILL ALWAYS discontinue, yay!
    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.

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

44Posts Today

3,241Users 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?

  • 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