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
    • mummy bee
    • By mummy bee 9th Apr 18, 1:26 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 7Thanks
    mummy bee
    CEL Claim form defend help
    • #1
    • 9th Apr 18, 1:26 PM
    CEL Claim form defend help 9th Apr 18 at 1:26 PM
    Hi all,
    I have received a Claim form for dropping off and picking up an elderly friend in a gated estate area. After receiving the PCN I wrote a letter to the company to explain the situation, but it has been refused. We do give a lift often to this old lady who suffers from Alzheimers, cancer and severe dementia and never had problem entering the site. This time we spent 19 minutes waiting for her as we could not reach her and was worried about her well being. We got the PCN with pictures of entering and leaving the site, but actually we did not park there as we have been waiting in the car. I have responded to the claim online and now I need to write my defence but I am lost especially as I do not fully understand these legal words( as English is not my first language). Can somebody guide me please what points to include and how can I include the real reason I have been in the site. Thanks for any help!
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Apr 18, 1:37 PM
    • 11,010 Posts
    • 10,979 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 9th Apr 18, 1:37 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Apr 18, 1:37 PM
    Firstly, get the lady's MP on the case as 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.

    Next, get on to the Managing Agents and ask them to cancel this stating that she is entitled to reasonable adjustments due to her protected characteristics uner the Equality Act. 2010.

    Thirdly, contact The Alzheimer's Society.

    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
    Last edited by The Deep; 09-04-2018 at 1:46 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 9th Apr 18, 1:43 PM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #3
    • 9th Apr 18, 1:43 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Apr 18, 1:43 PM
    Can somebody guide me please
    Search for "CEL Defence" or read the Newbies thread that will tell you

    1. Acknowledge the Claim and
    2. Send in one of the many CEL defences that are here. You don't need to understand the legal words but chose a defence that looks close to your situation.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 3:10 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 9th Apr 18, 3:10 PM
    • #4
    • 9th Apr 18, 3:10 PM
    Yep, I said on anther thread that a child could copy a CEL defence using crayon, and still win!
    • mummy bee
    • By mummy bee 9th Apr 18, 6:09 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mummy bee
    • #5
    • 9th Apr 18, 6:09 PM
    • #5
    • 9th Apr 18, 6:09 PM
    Thank you for quick reply.
    I have already acknowledged the claim as the Newbies says.
    I found a defence, I think I can use. Would somebody please check if it ok, in my case. Also should I state somewhere in my defence that we been helping out this elderly resident? The site does not state anything about visitors parking and you can't park anywhere near around this estate so you have to go in if you want to pick up somebody. Thank you!


    I am xxx, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle xxx.

    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

    1. The Claim Form issued on the XXX March 2018 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by Civil Enforcement Limited as the Claimant's Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) and 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 "Letter before County Court Claim" under the Practice Direction.

    b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of draft particulars. 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.
    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

    3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the parking event and when the notice was served, did not fully comply with statutory wording. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions:

    The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity, at any point, to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice entitled Parking Charge Notice which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.

    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) 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 £XXXXXXXXX for outstanding debt and damages. The additional costs, which the defendant contests have not been incurred, are none of its concern.

    4. 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's costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £XXXXXXXXX. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.

    5. 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 without having been furnished with the alleged signage, none of this applies in this material case.

    6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage 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 by 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 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.
    v. 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

    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.

    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 Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant sent a letter claiming to be a final letter before court action, but then instead sent this to more debt collectors. As such the Claimants have artificially inflated the claim value by claiming to involve further debt collectors, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid

    11. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car 9 months later. The burden rests with the Claimant to identify the driver, who is the only party potentially liable in cases where a parking firm is unable to rely upon the POFA.

    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 XXXXXXX March 2018.

    (b) 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.


    STATEMENT OF TRUTH

    I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.



    xxxxxx
    XXXXX March 2018
    • Redx
    • By Redx 9th Apr 18, 6:18 PM
    • 20,410 Posts
    • 25,767 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 9th Apr 18, 6:18 PM
    • #6
    • 9th Apr 18, 6:18 PM
    Thank you for quick reply.
    I have already acknowledged the claim as the Newbies says.
    I found a defence, I think I can use.

    Also should I state somewhere in my defence that we been helping out this elderly resident? The site does not state anything about visitors parking and you can't park anywhere near around this estate so you have to go in if you want to pick up somebody.
    Thank you!
    Originally posted by mummy bee
    this sounds more like what should be in the Witness Statement (WS) which if you read the NEWBIES FAQ comes much later on , near the court date, as does evidence

    the DEFENCE is where you are using legal arguments as to why the alleged claim is flawed
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 6:42 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 9th Apr 18, 6:42 PM
    • #7
    • 9th Apr 18, 6:42 PM
    Is this true, if not, remove these bits:
    10. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant sent a letter claiming to be a final letter before court action, but then instead sent this to more debt collectors. As such the Claimants have artificially inflated the claim value by claiming to involve further debt collectors, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid

    11. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car 9 months later. The burden rests with the Claimant to identify the driver, who is the only party potentially liable in cases where a parking firm is unable to rely upon the POFA.
    • mummy bee
    • By mummy bee 9th Apr 18, 7:11 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mummy bee
    • #8
    • 9th Apr 18, 7:11 PM
    • #8
    • 9th Apr 18, 7:11 PM
    I have received a "Letter before action" including a draft particulars and ParkingEye Limitedv Beavis Judgemet, but following it, I have received a few debt collector and solicitor letter.

    On number 11 if I want to mention on Witness Statement that I helped out this lady, I guess I should remove this section?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 7:13 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 9th Apr 18, 7:13 PM
    • #9
    • 9th Apr 18, 7:13 PM
    You do not write 'I' did anything, because that blows the 'no keeper liability' argument out!
    • mummy bee
    • By mummy bee 9th Apr 18, 7:19 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mummy bee
    Thanks! You are right and actually I wasn't driving the car on this occasion.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 7:24 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So IMHO, you could and should write that the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle, but was present as a passenger and is aware that the driver was engaged in simply...blah blah... (explain) and the driver accepted no contract. The driver did not agree to pay money for assisted boarding/alighting of an elderly and infirm passenger (which is not parking activity, as confirmed in the TMA2004, such activity cannot be considered to be parking on street and it follows that nor can it be construed as parking when dropping off or picking up a passenger on private land).

    At best/at a stretch, of parking is actually banned, this would be trespass, but that would be a matter for the landowner in possession. The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession could not claim damages under the tort of trespass, and in any case, this is not the crux of this claim. This Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-04-2018 at 7:28 PM.
    • mummy bee
    • By mummy bee 9th Apr 18, 8:19 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mummy bee
    Thank you again for helping! Would this be any good?
    11. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle, but was present as a passenger and is aware that the driver was engaged in simply assisting a resident elderly and infirm passenger to board/alighting to and from their home and the driver accepted no contract. The driver did not agree to pay money for assisted boarding/alighting of an elderly and infirm passenger (which is not parking activity, as confirmed in the TMA2004, such activity cannot be considered to be parking on street and it follows that nor can it be construed as parking when dropping off or picking up a passenger on private land). As this is a matter of trespass, the Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession could not claim damages under the tort of trespass, and in any case, this is not the crux of this claim. This Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Apr 18, 8:53 PM
    • 11,353 Posts
    • 11,882 Thanks
    KeithP
    In my opinion it would be good to expand TMA2004 to Traffic Management Act 2004.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 8:54 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    As this is - at best - a matter of trespass,
    • mummy bee
    • By mummy bee 9th Apr 18, 10:12 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mummy bee
    You are fantastic! Thank you so much! If you think the rest of the defence would be ok I will email them tomorrow. Wish me luck!
    • Redx
    • By Redx 9th Apr 18, 10:16 PM
    • 20,410 Posts
    • 25,767 Thanks
    Redx
    dont forget to print , sign and date , scan back to pc and save as a pdf BEFORE emailing as an attachment !
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • mummy bee
    • By mummy bee 10th Apr 18, 11:34 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mummy bee
    Thank you for reminding me Redx!
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 10th Apr 18, 12:21 PM
    • 11,010 Posts
    • 10,979 Thanks
    The Deep
    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.
    • mummy bee
    • By mummy bee 12th Apr 18, 4:52 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mummy bee
    Does anybody know if after sending the defence by email, should I get a reply of acknowledging the service? Or how do I know they have received it?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Apr 18, 4:54 PM
    • 20,410 Posts
    • 25,767 Thanks
    Redx
    ring them up and check (obvious)
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
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

2,423Posts Today

7,336Users online

Martin's Twitter