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
    • tower686
    • By tower686 6th Apr 18, 8:23 PM
    • 4Posts
    • 0Thanks
    tower686
    Civil Enforcement Limited Claim Form
    • #1
    • 6th Apr 18, 8:23 PM
    Civil Enforcement Limited Claim Form 6th Apr 18 at 8:23 PM
    Hello,

    After browsing posts about similar cases to mine i thought it would be easier to post on here and get some advice.
    I have received a Claim Form/Response Pack from Northampton County Court relating to a parking charge for using a car park for 14 minutes, which was captured by ANPR. I received this letter on 28/03/18 and the claimant is Civil Enforcement Limited.
    I have logged onto MCOL and submitted and AOS to have time to get advice on my next step.
    What is the most up to date template i should use to argue my claim?
    Ive read not to put your defence through MCOL, is this correct? who do i send the email to?

    Thanks in advance
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Apr 18, 8:53 PM
    • 56,325 Posts
    • 69,946 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 6th Apr 18, 8:53 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Apr 18, 8:53 PM
    What is the most up to date template i should use to argue my claim?
    Go and grab the one you find first when looking down page one, or two, here!
    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.

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Apr 18, 8:55 PM
    • 6,712 Posts
    • 5,935 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #3
    • 6th Apr 18, 8:55 PM
    • #3
    • 6th Apr 18, 8:55 PM
    who do i send the email to?
    Originally posted by tower686
    The County Court Business Centre in Northampton.

    Their email address can be found here:
    https://courttribunalfinder.service.gov.uk/courts/county-court-business-centre-ccbc
    Use the CCBCAQ one
    .
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 7th Apr 18, 10:45 AM
    • 9,095 Posts
    • 8,791 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 7th Apr 18, 10:45 AM
    • #4
    • 7th Apr 18, 10:45 AM
    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 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 lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    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 they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • tower686
    • By tower686 8th Apr 18, 10:43 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    tower686
    • #5
    • 8th Apr 18, 10:43 AM
    • #5
    • 8th Apr 18, 10:43 AM
    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number ****
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited v ******
    Defence Statement.

    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 The Legal Team

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

    1/ 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.

    2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
    (a)There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information. I have not yet requested anything? I did receive a Letter Before Action with a draft particulars of claim. Interestingly it stated an outstanding debt of 140 (251.47 on the County Court papers)
    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
    (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.

    3/ I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under 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.
    Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that, However keeper information is obtained, there is no reasonable presumption; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.

    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 XXX for outstanding debt and damages. I have never received a NTK just an initial PCN then a reminder then ZZPS who doubled up to 200 then Wright Hassel transfer going to 236 with a formal Letter Before Action. Lastly CEL Particulars of Claim quoting Vine v Waltham Forest London

    4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) 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.
    (b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (c) 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 authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (d) 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.

    5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (b) the sum pursued exceeds 100.
    (c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    6/ 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. I have no idea if CEL hold a legitimate contract or not.

    7/ 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. Can this really be stated if I have no idea about them having a contract?

    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. 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.

    10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr Cohen is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated XXXX are templates, so it is not credible that 50 legal costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. Mine states Claimant claims the amounts owed, plus court and legal fees, and interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to the Claimant at such rate, and for such period, as the court thinks fit.

    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 XXX My claim says that The Claimant (directly/through its agents) was left with no alternative but to escalate the matter as a result of their non-payment of the debt, which further increased the amount owed, in accordance with the terms of parking.
    (b) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** requesting further information and details of the claim I have not corresponded with them at all!

    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.



    How does this sound?
    I will of course update with all the relevant info once someone thinks this is good enough to send over to the courts

    Thanks in advance
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 12:19 AM
    • 56,325 Posts
    • 69,946 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 9th Apr 18, 12:19 AM
    • #6
    • 9th Apr 18, 12:19 AM
    Defence Statement.
    Where do people keep getting this from? Should be:

    DEFENCE

    This para is part of the defence and needs a number, should be your first point:
    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 The Legal Team
    And this one you will obviously need to change then, you can do that yourself, don't blindly copy something that says there was no LBC and 'despite requests' you didn't make:
    (a)There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information. I have not yet requested anything? I did receive a Letter Before Action with a draft particulars of claim. Interestingly it stated an outstanding debt of 140 (251.47 on the County Court papers)
    (b) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** requesting further information and details of the claim I have not corresponded with them at all!
    So...it's obvious what you do with that line then, isn't it.

    Come on, stop copying blindly. This is new to you but you can adapt a template to suit. Anyone can!

    Read the defence for yourself, make sure you are not stating something that did not happen.

    7/ 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. Can this really be stated if I have no idea about them having a contract?
    Of course.

    The claim is theirs to prove. Not your burden, theirs, you just throw the banana skins for them to slip up on!

    10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr Cohen is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated XXXX are templates, so it is not credible that 50 legal costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. Mine states Claimant claims the amounts owed, plus court and legal fees, and interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to the Claimant at such rate, and for such period, as the court thinks fit.
    So? Who cares what it says there. It's a standard CEL claim, a pile of pants.


    3/ I put the Claimant to strict proof
    No you don't. The Defendant (third person) does:
    3/ The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-04-2018 at 12:25 AM.
    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.

    • tower686
    • By tower686 16th Apr 18, 8:51 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    tower686
    • #7
    • 16th Apr 18, 8:51 PM
    • #7
    • 16th Apr 18, 8:51 PM
    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number ****
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited v ******

    DEFENCE

    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one 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 The Legal Team

    2/ 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.

    3/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
    (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. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
    (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.

    4/ The defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under 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.
    Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that, However keeper information is obtained, there is no reasonable presumption; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.

    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.

    5/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) 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.
    (b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (c) 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 authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (d) 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.

    6/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (b) the sum pursued exceeds 100.
    (c) 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. I have no idea if CEL hold a legitimate contract or not.

    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 XXX My claim says that The Claimant (directly/through its agents) was left with no alternative but to escalate the matter as a result of their non-payment of the debt, which further increased the amount owed, in accordance with the terms of parking.
    (b) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** requesting further information and details of the claim I have not corresponded with them at all!

    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.

    I have taken on board you comments and made adjustments as required as best i could.
    Could you have another look and see if this is good enough to send off

    Thanks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 16th Apr 18, 8:56 PM
    • 6,712 Posts
    • 5,935 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 16th Apr 18, 8:56 PM
    • #8
    • 16th Apr 18, 8:56 PM
    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:
    Please re-read post #6 - especially the bit about third person.
    .
    • tower686
    • By tower686 18th Apr 18, 7:26 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    tower686
    • #9
    • 18th Apr 18, 7:26 AM
    • #9
    • 18th Apr 18, 7:26 AM
    ah yes. I'll delete that line to keep as a third party.

    The rest of it looking okay?
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

4,097Posts Today

8,287Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Facebook today admitted in parliament that after it heard of my defamation lawsuit against it for 50 fake scam ads? https://t.co/XttOnyH9sq

  • RT @jamiesusskind: After more than 10 years, and with such sadness, I am leaving Labour. I'm doing it for the same reason that I joined: be?

  • RT @Deeangelique_: I suggested @MartinSLewis get 'I Don't Do Ads' tattooed to his forehead yesterday. Today he posted this. I gave Martin L?

  • Follow Martin