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
    • SWest
    • By SWest 15th May 18, 9:22 AM
    • 12Posts
    • 0Thanks
    SWest
    HELP PLEASE - CEL Successful CCJ set aside but a new claim has been submitted against me
    • #1
    • 15th May 18, 9:22 AM
    HELP PLEASE - CEL Successful CCJ set aside but a new claim has been submitted against me 15th May 18 at 9:22 AM
    Hi Everyone please help!!

    Firstly thank you so much to all the amazing advice and help on this forum I've managed to use it to successfully set aside the CCJ I had against me. but now i'm not sure what to do so looking for a little advice maybe because i've read so much info im now not sure what to use or what to do!

    Background:

    I was made aware of a CCJ when I applied for a credit card and got a 100 limit on it which prompted me to check my credit rating and that's when I found the CCJ 2 days after i could pay it and it be removed which was annoying in itself as at that point I just wanted ti gone from my credit report no matter the cost.

    With that not being an option I applied and paid for a set aside as the claim form was served at an old address. I used the example set aside forms on here and attended court (CEL did not turn up) and the Judge set it aside he also was very unhappy with CEl saying they hadn't filed a proper claim form anyway etc etc so seemed very much on my side.

    Then CEL sent me a more detailed particulars of claim and I've now had a letter from the court saying i need to submit my defence in 2 weeks so I am assuming CEL are trying to claim the money again from me! I've already paid the 255 to set aside and now CEL still want 350!

    In their particulars of claim they state that ANPR camera captured the car, it tells me time and date and where the car park is.... Now I know the car park they are referring to and I know without a shadow of a doubt they don't have ANPR cameras they actually use parking attendants, also in case they argue they do have ANPRs i checked planning and there is no planning permission to install them so they are already given incorrect info on their claim form...

    That aside what is my defence there are so many examples I'm not sure what to copy over and what not to.

    They have added the wording on the Ts&Cs of the car park into the letter but its cut of half way so not all Ts&Cs are included so can I say the particulars of claim is not complete?

    Their Ts&Cs also don't say that ANPR cameras are used or not so is that another ground i can use against them the contract wasn't clear the only place they have ANPR cameras is on a tiny sign at the entrance of the car park its no were else and not on the sign that has the Ts&cs

    Also the statement of truth (which is not a statement of truth as contains at least one lie that i can prove) is signed by Ashley Cohen (very confused as i've seen threads saying he shouldn't be signing stuff anymore?) Also the letter is signed from 'the legal team' so i can add that it.

    I'm so angry at them after reading what they do to people can I counter claim against them for my 255 set aside fee i want to make sure they don't get away with this anymore and maybe if people start getting awarded their set aside fee back they will stop it!

    Also added context to why I want my money back is my mum got a parking ticket from them she had 100% paid for parking via pay by phone she was going to pay the 60 but i contested it and wrote to them they declined the contest despite provide receipts for parking against the correct reg number for the duration of her stay! I then went to popla and they awarded in my favour but when they declined it my mum was like i'm going to just pay it as its going to go up to 100 they do it deliberately just to take advantage of people like my mum that don't have the confidence to stand up to them... I have the confidence but not the knowledge im trying to understand it all but your help would be greatly appreciated!

    Thanks in advance!
Page 1
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 15th May 18, 11:09 AM
    • 1,495 Posts
    • 1,977 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    • #2
    • 15th May 18, 11:09 AM
    • #2
    • 15th May 18, 11:09 AM
    hang on , IF they won , it would not be that ficticious sum , 100 limit , 50 max for solisitors and then cort costs (25) cel got away with sticking a trumped up charges as they knew you could not defend (wrong address)

    step back


    ticket on car or ticket in post , time recieved after incident ?
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 15th May 18, 11:19 AM
    • 4,181 Posts
    • 5,946 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #3
    • 15th May 18, 11:19 AM
    • #3
    • 15th May 18, 11:19 AM
    Whos car park we as this?
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • SWest
    • By SWest 15th May 18, 11:59 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SWest
    • #4
    • 15th May 18, 11:59 AM
    • #4
    • 15th May 18, 11:59 AM
    All communication went to a previous address so no idea what the original fine was for as an amount.

    I can only assume it wasn't on my windscreen because I or any other diver would have responded to it so I think it would have been served in the post (CEL refused to send me copies of their correspondence they allegedly sent me to an old address).

    Not sure who's car park it is, I only know that its managed by CEL its just a bit of land in between buildings it's not like a hospital car park or supermarket car park and it definitely doesn't have ANPR cameras because i've seen wardens going round the car park when Ivisited it to look at the signage and definitely no ANPR camera i looked high and low for them not even anywhere they could be mounted.

    The alleged incident took place in January

    Amount they are claiming is circa 300
    Last edited by SWest; 22-05-2018 at 8:23 AM. Reason: added extra point in
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 15th May 18, 12:27 PM
    • 1,495 Posts
    • 1,977 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    • #5
    • 15th May 18, 12:27 PM
    • #5
    • 15th May 18, 12:27 PM
    All communication went to a previous address so no idea what the original fine was for as an amount.

    I can only assume it wasn't on my windscreen because I or any other diver would have responded to it so I think it would have been served in the post (CEL refused to send me copies of their correspondence they allegedly sent me to an old address).

    Not sure who's car park it is, I only know that its managed by CEL its just a bit of land in between buildings it's not like a hospital car park or supermarket car park and it definitely doesn't have ANPR cameras because i've seen wardens going round the car park when Ivisited it to look at the signage and definitely no ANPR camera i looked high and low for them not even anywhere they could be mounted.

    The alleged incident took place on 02/01/2017.

    Amount they are claiming is 323.98
    Originally posted by SWest
    maybe , but the amount they would GET is substantially less than that , tipicly 100 , - if they won

    you have not explained why they sent letters to an old address , perhaps you did not update your V5 , or you moved within 56 days of the incident (14 days - if they claim it was ANPR / no ticket on car )
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • SWest
    • By SWest 15th May 18, 12:45 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SWest
    • #6
    • 15th May 18, 12:45 PM
    • #6
    • 15th May 18, 12:45 PM
    maybe , but the amount they would GET is substantially less than that , tipicly 100 , - if they won

    you have not explained why they sent letters to an old address , perhaps you did not update your V5 , or you moved within 56 days of the incident (14 days - if they claim it was ANPR / no ticket on car )
    I didn't get a new V5 when I bought the car I got the little slip from the dealer - I didn't realise they submitted wrong address on the paperwork so assume V5 went to old address although i had a redirect on so if it did it would have come through. I totally forgot about (as dealer said it was all sorted) until the CCJ and then once I realized what had happened i paid to get a new V5 and updated plus set up a redirect on my old address straight away.

    Judge said that was sufficient enough to set CCJ aside and because the original claim form did not have sufficient detail for me to be able to defend myself properly.

    when he rules in my favour i thought that was the end of it all but now they have submitted a new claim form with a bit more detail and i have to mount a defence but the defence letter examples dont make sense to me so i can't work out if the defence points in the examples apply to me or not - sorry i am really trying to understand it all the set aside info and form examples made sense and have worked just want to get this right.

    It would be an added bonus if I could also get the 255 set aside fee back as well, but if not i'll just be happy that this is gone.

    Thnaks,
    Last edited by SWest; 15-05-2018 at 12:49 PM. Reason: added point
    • Redx
    • By Redx 15th May 18, 12:54 PM
    • 18,406 Posts
    • 23,321 Thanks
    Redx
    • #7
    • 15th May 18, 12:54 PM
    • #7
    • 15th May 18, 12:54 PM
    you dont counter claim the 255 , you add it to the costs order you claim from the judge

    as you had a set aside, that leaves the outstanding charge which they are claiming for, as if the CCJ hadnt happened

    the main thing is to comply with the court and get a new defence in , plus any WS , SA and any evidence , and the costs request etc as well including the 3255 set aside fee and up to 95 (same as anyone else does)

    there are standard CEL defence templates in the NEWBIES sticky thread, plus recent ones in other CEL threads on here, just adapt one and post it on here below for critique

    until you post your draft, nobody can comment on it
    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
    • SWest
    • By SWest 15th May 18, 1:09 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SWest
    • #8
    • 15th May 18, 1:09 PM
    • #8
    • 15th May 18, 1:09 PM
    15th May 18, 11:54 AM
    you dont counter claim the 255 , you add it to the costs order you claim from the judge

    as you had a set aside, that leaves the outstanding charge which they are claiming for, as if the CCJ hadnt happened

    the main thing is to comply with the court and get a new defence in , plus any WS , SA and any evidence , and the costs request etc as well including the 3255 set aside fee and up to 95 (same as anyone else does)

    there are standard CEL defence templates in the NEWBIES sticky thread, plus recent ones in other CEL threads on here, just adapt one and post it on here below for critique

    until you post your draft, nobody can comment on it
    Ill give the defence a go a lot of it doesn't make sense to know if it applies to me or not but some does. I cant see any defence letters where people also claim the set aside fee back sorry if I'm missing this I've found lots that have a defence but non with the counter claim unless this is done separate to the defence?

    Thanks
    • Redx
    • By Redx 15th May 18, 1:12 PM
    • 18,406 Posts
    • 23,321 Thanks
    Redx
    • #9
    • 15th May 18, 1:12 PM
    • #9
    • 15th May 18, 1:12 PM
    start by drafting and posting your defence on here

    once you have done that the fine tuning starts , which means the whole idea is to hone your defence and if it needs extras included then you will be pointed at those extras etc

    this is a gradual process, so start with the basics and move forwards

    as I also said previously, your costs order will include all sorts of costs , including claiming back the 255 in the judgment issued by the judge (if you win)

    stop trying to do this all at once , its a hurdle race , so start with the first hurdle
    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 15th May 18, 2:57 PM
    • 59,409 Posts
    • 72,564 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    sorry if I'm missing this I've found lots that have a defence but non with the counter claim unless this is done separate to the defence?
    Originally posted by SWest
    YOU ARE NOT COUNTER CLAIMING. YOU DO NOT COUNTER CLAIM FOR COSTS.

    Redx told you:

    you don't counter claim the 255 , you add it to the costs order you claim from the judge
    So you just add it to your costs schedule, including your costs and loss of leave/salary for attending two hearings (all explained in the NEWBIES thread).

    Adapt a CEL defence that you find, that talks about no keeper liability.

    Add in your own points about this car park not being an ANPR one, etc.

    Show us.
    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.

    • SWest
    • By SWest 21st May 18, 12:50 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SWest
    Hi,

    Ok I think that makes sense just need to find a Costs schedule example but I've had a go at the defence I've got some questions sorry! Really appreciate your help thank you for your patience. I nearly had a panic attack in the court so stupid i know but i got myself all worked up and the thought of having to go back without understanding what is in my defence worries me so just want to make sure i know what all of these points mean. Ive removed my personal details from this but not the dates.


    IN THE XXX COURT; COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxx

    BETWEEN:


    -AND-

    XXXX

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the matter of court claim, ****, I am **** the defendant in this matter and can be served at the address on the claim form. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed or any amount at all, for the following reasons, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of every element of its claim, all of which is not admitted.

    1) The Claimant is a serial litigant whose business model is to file large numbers of spurious claims and pressure defendants into paying up by sending letters increasing costs. In a preliminary hearing for a number of cases in Bristol, HHJ Denyer expressed his concern at the way CEL were conducting their cases and described the letters as a disgrace. How do I know this?

    2) It is submitted that neither the Claim form or additional particulars of claim meet the requirements of practice directions and civil procedures. Why don!!!8217;t they?

    The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. 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.

    3) The Claim form itself is invalid, not meeting the requirements of CPR as signed as "the legal team" and not by a named individual.

    4) The additional particulars of claim which is dated the 11th October 2017 arrived much later and are signed purportedly by Ashley Cohen. Mr Cohen was reported to sign off witness statements under London Councils POPLA on behalf of landowners, for CEL POPLA cases falsely stating authority. It is submitted that he is a director of another company, Bemrose Mobile Limited which supplies the pay by phone payment methods for parking. Mr Cohen was a former director of Creative Contracts Ltd but has since resigned. Mr Cohen is therefore put to strict proof the capacity and authority he has in signing such statements. How do I know this?

    5) The Claimant has not provided enough information for me to defend the claim. The original claim was set aside on xxx by xxx the original claim form gave no indication as to what the matter was in relation to e.g. the car park address, date, the vehicle registration, the amount of initial charge or the reason why the charge(s) arose. I therefore have no idea what the claim is
    about. The particulars signed by Mr Cohen appear to be simply a "cut and paste job" and do not actually particularise the claim. They now do detail the location but no evidence is provide should I adapt this?

    6) The Claimant is put to strict proof their ability to issue and pursue charges at this location and that they have a valid contract in their name with the Landowner to instigate any legal action. A full contemporaneous and unredacted contract with the landowner showing a clear chain of
    authority is required to demonstrate the Claimant' s ability to pursue the charge. Additionally, The Claimant is put to strict proof the accuracy of any ANPR and that their signs have the relevant advertising/planning consents. I have checked with local authority and there is no planning permission for ANPR camera at the car parking site nor are there any visible ANPR cameras at the car parking having visited it after receiving details of its location for the claimant. (should i keep this i added it in)

    7) The Claimant has not adduced any evidence of any breach of terms, or that their signs meet requirements under their ATA Code of Practice or that the signs comply with requirements under the Consumer Contracts (Information,Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (CCR) and that any terms are not onerous or fail any test under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The contract that they have put in the particulars of claim has been cut off halfway through and therefore i still have no detail of the alleged contract (is this a separate point or irrelevant I added the red bit in).

    8) The Claimant has not disclosed if proceedings are being issued against me as the keeper or the purported driver. It is submitted that as the keeper, I cannot be held liable for the charge as the Claimant does not rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom's Act 2012 nor comply with the statutory requirements of the Act. As no evidence has been adduced as to the driver's identity prior to the claim and as keeper liability cannot be invoked, it is submitted the Claimant has no further grounds for pursuit of this claim against me. (they have actually said I was driving in their particulars of claim so do I need to change this again they haven!!!8217;t provided any evidence of this nor have I admitted to being the driver I am the registered keeper) (in their particulars of claim they state 'when the defendant parked their vehicle')

    9) The Claim amount far exceeds the total permitted for recovery for a parking charge amount under the Claimant's ATA Code of Practice, it is submitted that the Claimant has artificially inflated the claim by failing to issue proceedings following their letter before action, instead passing the matter to a debt collector first where there is no basis for additional charges. I haven!!!8217;t received any copies of paperwork sent to my old address and the claimant refused to send them to me when i requested them on the phone. (added this in is it ok)

    10) 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 contract none of this applies in this material case.

    10.1. 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.

    10.2. 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.

    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 nearly 15 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 a registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

    12) The Claimant is a serial abuser of the courts in this way, filing over 3,000 claims in 2014. However, it is widely reported that the Claimant fails to turn up to defended cases, wasting the court!!!8217;s and the defendant!!!8217;s time. This has already been the defendants experience once at their set aside hearing on xxx at xxx whereby the Claimant did not attend or respond to correspondence from the court relating to this matter.

    13)The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    13.1) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on XX March 2018.
    13.2) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste Particulars of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis/Vine v Waltham Forest) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

    14) In addition to the conduct regarding the lack of good service of the claim, the purported cause of action was meritless and misconceived. Given the fact that this Claimant does not rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, and cannot claim 'keeper liability' under that law due to the wording of its notice, the action of pursuing a registered keeper with no evidence as to who was driving on the material date, is vexatious and wholly unreasonable. From the outset, this Claimant's claim was without merit and had no prospects of success.

    15) Should the claim continue to trial, the Defendant submits that, for any or all of the reasons stated above, the Claimant is not entitled to the relief in the sum claimed, or at all, and invites the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety, and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible pursuant to CPR 27.14.

    16) I therefore ask that that the claim be struck out as having no prospect of success, and bring to the courts attention a similar order made in the case of Premier Park Limited v Lisa Grafton, A3QK0712, struck out on 19 March 2015. As the Claimant is not likely to attend court even if the claim progresses, this will save costs all round.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH

    I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

    xxx
    XX May 2018
    Last edited by SWest; 22-05-2018 at 8:24 AM.
    • SWest
    • By SWest 21st May 18, 1:12 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SWest
    So you just add it to your costs schedule, including your costs and loss of leave/salary for attending two hearings (all explained in the NEWBIES thread).
    Just reread everything so just to check I do the costs schedule if I win my case only so it come later not as part of the defence? I also noticed in some people original set aside letters that's where they ask for the set aside fee to be refunded - I didn't do that in my set aside, so not sure i can now do it later in this costs schedule?

    On my set aside it says no order as to costs - not sure what that means again maybe I now cant claim back the set aside fee?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 21st May 18, 1:48 PM
    • 2,810 Posts
    • 3,501 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Dont add quesitons in the middle of the defence. Also, TURN OFF "smart punctuation" on your internet device. Do that now.

    Show us an image of the Set Aside Order. Just show us. It will save so much time.

    1) Research, thats how
    2) Usually failing to disclose a cause of action, or they arent signed by an actual person, etc. Read around, or compare to the PD and CPR yourself.

    4) First, is that actually what happeded in your case? Beware copying and pasting. Secondly, as above really - did you do any research into this? Blind copy and pasting and then asking questions about it, with no research, doesnt help anyone to help you.

    5) Yes of course you adapt something to actually fit your facts. You do not need to be told this. If what you are copying does NOT meet what happened in YOUR CASE then of course you must change it.

    6) I wouldnt muddle locus standi with having planning consent. Planning consent is also mostly irerelevant - if youre trying to argue that an illegal act should not be supported by the court, you need to check for advertising consent for the signs, IF the signs are large enough to requier it. THis is then its own entirley separatre argument> DO NOT muddle the two.

    7) Whne you say "the contract" here in your question I presume youre confused, and are thinking point 7 relates to a written contract to operate on the land. It does not. it refers to the alleged contract they offered by way of SIGNS on site. So you point about contract is actually to be asked at 6), because that is where you quesiton their authority to bring chagres.

    If you do actually mean they have included an image of the signage but that this image has been chopped off, then I would be specific and talk about signage, not "contract" which has a couple meanings here

    8) You have to therefore alter it, of course you do. You cannot state they havent said something, if they have done so. You must of course NOT tell a public forum who drove (so edit that damned post!)

    You could state: the claimant has alleged that the D was driving the vehicle on the material date, however... and if you were not hte driver, say so, and if you may have been the driver state they have offered no evidence as to the identity of the driver, and have not proven their cliam.

    9) NEVER USE "I". "the defendant", not "I". If you requested via phone give at least a date, it makes it sound so much better. You could state: the claimant was asked to provide copies of critical documents sucha sX on Y date, however has refused to do so. (silence is a refusa, so even if you did it by letter youd say refused)

    COST:

    As I said, just show us the actual order granting the set aside. then we dont have to deal with possible paraphrasings. usual procedur e- post a link to tinypic etc, with "http" changed to "hxxp". We will then fix it for you and make it work.
    • SWest
    • By SWest 21st May 18, 3:11 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SWest
    8) You have to therefore alter it, of course you do. You cannot state they haven't said something, if they have done so. You must of course NOT tell a public forum who drove (so edit that damned post!)
    Sorry I'm not telling the public I drove - the point was that CEL said in their particulars of claim that the defendant parked their car, but not provided evidence that I was the driver. I dont have any knowledge of this alleged incident - the point about registered keep vs driver is valid I'm just not sure if i can still make it given they have said the defendant parked their car in their particulars of claim - without providing any evidence that I was the driver.
    • SWest
    • By SWest 21st May 18, 3:14 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SWest
    4) First, is that actually what happeded in your case? Beware copying and pasting. Secondly, as above really - did you do any research into this? Blind copy and pasting and then asking questions about it, with no research, doesnt help anyone to help you.
    Ive read a lot of info i managed to get as far as set aside without help as it was all clear and made sense however now its gone to this defence bit some of the language used is making it difficult for me to know what is relevant to me and what is not as each case has slightly different circumstances. Ive used several example defences and copied the bits over that seemed relevant however i wasnt sure about a few points and how i should adapt them or if i should adapt them at all. Sorry I really am trying to understand and I have read lot of post all the Newbie info etc but not all of it is clear to me.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st May 18, 3:36 PM
    • 59,409 Posts
    • 72,564 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    the point about registered keep vs driver is valid I'm just not sure if i can still make it given they have said the defendant parked their car in their particulars of claim
    Of course you must. They are trying it on, as they always do.

    They are not allowed to assume - search the forum for Henry Greenslade POPLA Annual to see his words, and he's a barrister and one of the most eminent experts on parking law arguments, having led both PATAS and POPLA in his time.

    You have his name in your point #11:
    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 nearly 15 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 a registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.
    I suggest you Google and read his words about 'Understanding Keeper Liability'.
    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.

    • SWest
    • By SWest 21st May 18, 3:48 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SWest
    Show us an image of the Set Aside Order. Just show us. It will save so much time.
    hxxp://i68.tinypic.com/2u73p8w.jpg do you want to see particulars of claim as well or just judgement order? Thanks.
    • SWest
    • By SWest 21st May 18, 4:20 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SWest
    4) First, is that actually what happeded in your case? Beware copying and pasting. Secondly, as above really - did you do any research into this? Blind copy and pasting and then asking questions about it, with no research, doesnt help anyone to help you.

    5) Yes of course you adapt something to actually fit your facts. You do not need to be told this. If what you are copying does NOT meet what happened in YOUR CASE then of course you must change it.
    I've removed anything I'm not sure about and made the suggested amends:

    In the matter of court claim, ****, I am **** the defendant in this matter and can be served at the address on the claim form. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed or any amount at all, for the following reasons, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of every element of its claim, all of which is not admitted.

    1) It is submitted that neither the Claim form nor additional particulars of claim meet the requirements of practice directions and civil procedures.

    2) The Claim form itself is invalid, not meeting the requirements of CPR as signed as "the legal team" and not by a named individual.

    3) In the particular of claim the claimant details that they use ANPR cameras were used to identify the vehicle but after the defendant visited the site and checked with the relevant local authority the defendant could see no physical ANPR cameras or any planning permission granting the instillation of ANPR cameras on the site detailed in the particulars of claim.

    4) The additional particulars of claim which is dated the 11th October 2017 arrived much later and are signed purportedly by Ashley Cohen. Mr Cohen was reported to sign off witness statements under London Councils POPLA on behalf of landowners, for Civil Enforcement Limited POPLA cases falsely stating authority. It is submitted that he is a director of another company, Bemrose Mobile Limited which supplies the pay by phone payment methods for parking. Mr Cohen was a former director of Creative Contracts Ltd but has since resigned. Mr Cohen is therefore put to strict proof the capacity and authority he has in signing such statements.

    5) The Claimant is put to strict proof their ability to issue and pursue charges at this location and that they have a valid contract in their name with the Landowner to instigate any legal action. A full contemporaneous and unredacted contract with the landowner showing a clear chain of authority is required to demonstrate the Claimant' s ability to pursue the charge. Additionally, The Claimant is put to strict proof the accuracy of any ANPR and that their signs have the relevant advertising/planning consents.

    6) The Claimant has not adduced any evidence of any breach of terms, or that their signs meet requirements under their ATA Code of Practice or that the signs comply with requirements under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (CCR) and that any terms are not onerous or fail any test under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    7) The Claimant has assumed and detailed that the defendant was the driver of the car during the alleged incident but has not provided any evidence to substantiate this claim as the defendant I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. It is submitted that as the keeper, the defendant cannot be held liable for the charge as the Claimant does not rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom's Act 2012 nor comply with the statutory requirements of the Act. As no evidence has been adduced as to the driver's identity prior to the claim and as keeper liability cannot be invoked, it is submitted the Claimant has no further grounds for pursuit of this claim against the defendant.

    8) 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 nearly 15 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 a registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

    9) 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 contract none of this applies in this material case.

    9.1) 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.

    9.2) 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 is a serial abuser of the courts in this way, filing over 3,000 claims in 2014. In a preliminary hearing for a number of cases in Bristol, HHJ Denyer expressed his concern at the way Civil Enforcement Limited were conducting their cases and described the letters as a disgrace. However, it is widely reported that the Claimant fails to turn up to defended cases, wasting the court's and the defendant's time. This has already been the dependence experience at the defendants set aside hearing on xxx at xxx whereby the Claimant did not attend or respond to correspondence from the court relating to this matter.

    11) The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    11.1) Failed to disclose any actual in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on xxx.
    11.2) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste Particulars of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis/Vine v Waltham Forest) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

    12) Should the claim continue to trial, the Defendant submits that, for any or all of the reasons stated above, the Claimant is not entitled to the relief in the sum claimed, or at all, and invites the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety, and to award such defence witness costs as are permissible pursuant to CPR 27.14.

    13) The defendant therefore kindly requests that that the claim be struck out as having no prospect of success, and bring to the courts attention a similar order made in the case of Premier Park Limited v Lisa Grafton, A3QK0712, struck out on 19 March 2015. As the Claimant is not likely to attend court even if the claim progresses, this will save costs all round.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH

    I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.
    Last edited by SWest; 21-05-2018 at 4:22 PM. Reason: typo
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 21st May 18, 5:48 PM
    • 36,238 Posts
    • 20,512 Thanks
    Quentin
    They know this thread is about them, so no point deleting their name!

    But they will be able to identify you from all the other specifics you have left.

    Live link post deleted

    Up to you what you do about it now

    But bear in mind that th Ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you
    Last edited by Quentin; 21-05-2018 at 5:52 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 21st May 18, 5:53 PM
    • 7,983 Posts
    • 7,845 Thanks
    KeithP
    ...especially if your forum username is anything like your real name.

    If it is, then this guidance from the MSE Forum Guide may help:
    Q. How can I change my username?

    A.
    In most circumstances, this is not permitted.

    The only reason we will change your username is if it puts your privacy at risk. This usually means you've inadvertently registered using your name, email address or something that gives away your identity within your username.

    If you fall into this category, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com and request that it is changed, giving three alternative usernames in order of preference.
    .
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

1,513Posts Today

8,948Users online

Martin's Twitter