County Court Claim received from CEL - help please

zhilla · 17 March 2018 at 5:00PM

Hi,

I'm still working my way through the stickied post and working out what I need to do, but I already have a couple of questions.

I received a parking charge notice through the post re a 17 minute stay in a private car park in May last year. I ignored all correspondence (oops) and have today received a County Court Claim Form from Civil Enforcement Limited.

Is it too late to complain to the fitness centre the car park belongs to?

To get authorisation to park in said car park you have to park, go upstairs (with 2 small children in tow) into the fitness club and queue to get your car registration details entered into their system. Is it likely that 17 minutes would be classed as being within a reasonable grace period?

Should I complete the acknowledgement of service immediately, or wait for a few days to give myself time to take photos of signage etc?

Many thanks
Z

Coupon-mad · 17 March 2018 at 5:13PM

Is it too late to complain to the fitness centre the car park belongs to?

Probably won't stop the claim, but EVERY complaint tells the landowner their pet PPC is scum, and a threat to their customers. The Gym need to wake up and smell the coffee, so make sure the Manager hears your wrath, and leave the Gym membership if you can. Tell them you are telling friends & family to boycott the place.

So do it for that reason alone. Weight of complaints can get a PPC kicked out in the end.

To get authorisation to park in said car park you have to park, go upstairs (with 2 small children in tow) into the fitness club and queue to get your car registration details entered into their system. Is it likely that 17 minutes would be classed as being within a reasonable grace period?

yes you can argue that; reasonable given the circumstances, especially if you say there was a queue.

Should I complete the acknowledgement of service immediately, or wait for a few days to give myself time to take photos of signage etc?

No need to wait, the AOS day makes no difference as long as you file the AOS within 14 days. It extends the time to defend to 28 days anyway, counting from the date the claim was served.

The_Deep · 17 March 2018 at 6:23PM

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another 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.

Zhilla_2 · 2 April 2018 at 6:34PM

[FONT=&quot]Does this look ok as a defence please? I'm doing it online so am limited to 122 lines - which this just meets! Any advice much appreciated! Many thanks

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I, XXXXXXXXX, deny I am liable to the Claimant for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the entirety of the claim:[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]The Claim Form issued on 16/03/2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited”.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). E.g. a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. Each are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
1. [FONT=&quot]There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
3. [FONT=&quot]The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
4. [FONT=&quot]The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea 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 which should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
5. [FONT=&quot]The[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Defenc[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
1. [FONT=&quot]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[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
3. [FONT=&quot]How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
4. [FONT=&quot]Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
5. [FONT=&quot]Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
6. [FONT=&quot]The basis for any charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed[/FONT]
7. [FONT=&quot]The basis on which any interest is being claimed.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another [/FONT][FONT=&quot]defence[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. Neither the signs, nor any NTK mentioned a possible additional amount for outstanding debt and damages.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. The particulars of claim are templates, so it is not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs’ were incurred.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
1. [FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
3. [FONT=&quot]Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver:[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  1. [FONT=&quot]Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  2. [FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  3. [FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  4. [FONT=&quot]The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
4. [FONT=&quot]BPA CoP breaches: [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]All signage has been replaced since the date in question, which indicates that the Claimant acknowledges the inadequacy of the original signage.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No standing - 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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is believed that the only way to obtain authorisation to park is to park the car, enter the premises (up a steep concrete staircase) and wait in line for car details to be input to the landowner’s IT system. Therefore the period of the claim should fall within a reasonable grace period.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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 10 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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter. 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.[/FONT]

KeithP · 2 April 2018 at 8:41PM

You really should not be doing your Defence via the MCOL website.
The reason for this is clearly explained in Bargepole's walkthrough linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

When you have constructed a good Defence you should email it to the CCBCAQ email address easily available on this forum or on the court's contact us webpage.

Repeat... do not submit your Defence via MCOL. It is unnecessarily restrictive and destroys any formatting. You need a nicely formatted Defence (advice on formatting is also in the same NEWBIES post) to help the judge to easily come to the conclusion that you are in the right.

Please wait for others to comment on your Defence content.

If the Issue Date on your Claim Form is 16 March, and you did the AoS in time, then you have until 4pm on Wednesday 18 April to email your Defence - but obviously don't leave it to the last minute.

Coupon-mad · 2 April 2018 at 11:33PM

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

Please can we never see the stuff above that ever again?

Where are people getting this rambling old version from?

Also please read this so we don't get the usual update about the daft letter CEL send next:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74088561#post74088561

There is a newer one linked in the NEWBIES thread so why do we see this one all the time?

Quentin · 4 April 2018 at 12:06PM

@Stefanoka

No-one will reply to you when you hijack someone elses thread.

You need to delete the post above and start your own thread if you need to after first reading through all the advice in #2 of the newbies faq thread nesar the top of the forum

Fruitcake · 4 April 2018 at 12:07PM

Stefanoka23 wrote: »

Hi guys. I am applying for acknowledgement of service to give me another 14 days to prepare my case.
Should I -
Defend all or part of the claim?
Intend to contest jurisdiction?

Thanks

Please delete this and post it on your own thread instead of hijacking someone else's.

Coupon-mad · 4 April 2018 at 8:36PM

Stefanoka23 wrote: »

Hi guys. I am applying for acknowledgement of service to give me another 14 days to prepare my case.
Should I -
Defend all or part of the claim?
Intend to contest jurisdiction?

These are answered by bargepole in the NEWBIES thread. Of course you defend the entire claim and you don't contest jurisdiction.

Are you the same person as Zhilla? If not, come off this person's thread and please just copy what everyone else does and read the NEWBIES thread for what to do and when and what boxes to tick (the second post of the sticky).

Lou9 · 6 April 2018 at 8:25AM

Just joining this thread as I too have received a PCN from CEL just yesterday.

After reading several posts I was thinking of ignoring this and subsequent letters and in the event it goes to court, wanted to research where I stand as I don't want a County Court Judgement on my credit record.

I found this on trustonline.org.uk...can anyone substantiate this advice (perhaps from experience)? Thanks so much:

Your CCJ options
You have 5 options:

Pay in full You can choose to pay the amount in full straight away (plus any interest and court fees shown). If you do, you don't need to send the forms back. There won't be a court hearing and you won't have a CCJ recorded against you

System · 6 April 2018 at 8:28AM

@Lou9

Start your own thread rather than hijacking this one.

County Court Claim received from CEL - help please

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free