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
    • koby83
    • By koby83 4th Oct 18, 7:55 PM
    • 22Posts
    • 6Thanks
    koby83
    claim form from CEL he;p needed on how to play it
    • #1
    • 4th Oct 18, 7:55 PM
    claim form from CEL he;p needed on how to play it 4th Oct 18 at 7:55 PM
    Can anyone please help with how i play this.
    I got a fine from CEL for overstaying by approx half an hour on one of there car parks
    They have ANPR and sent me pictures of my car entering and leaving.
    Now this is a car park which is free for 3 hours. It appears that the driver most of overstayed, I do however have gym membership for a gym thats customers are allowed to use this car park. Initially the gym was the only business on the car park, then other units popped up so we were given a sticker for our car which meant that we could stay as long as we want. Then things changed and more units came so they made the car park free for all for 3 hours.
    My point is, my car was alleged to of overstayed but as the car park is free they have no loss in earning so therefor their demand for 350 is very steep. Also with me having a gym membership i am contributing to the site anyway.
    I have had a claim form and aim to fight this in court and will be acknowledging so
    p.s. i have had lots of letters, debt collector and solicitor letters but i ignored them all.
    Last edited by koby83; 12-10-2018 at 10:41 PM.
Page 2
    • koby83
    • By koby83 6th Oct 18, 3:20 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    koby83
    Here's hoping!!!
    if i write my defense and post it on here do you think someone might take a look and let me know if i am on the right track please?
    as like i said a lot of the defenses i have read dont really apply to me!
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 6th Oct 18, 3:26 PM
    • 3,300 Posts
    • 2,237 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Here's hoping!!!
    if i write my defense and post it on here do you think someone might take a look and let me know if i am on the right track please?
    as like i said a lot of the defenses i have read dont really apply to me!
    Originally posted by koby83
    Yes, that is exactly the right way to do it. It is a self-help forum with guidance and you cannot be guided if you have made no attempt at self-help, so get your defence together and post it here. No personal details of course. You will received lots of help.
    • koby83
    • By koby83 6th Oct 18, 4:35 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    koby83
    i have done the acknowledgement today and spent a lot of the day looking threw other peoples defences and copied some bits and pieces that are relevant to me.
    I then went on to read a section on the newbie thread of what to argue and what not to. I feel that this has pretty much wiped out any argument i had.
    If i post a copy of my defence is there anyone i can ask to have a look to see if it holds up?
    many thanks
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 6th Oct 18, 4:41 PM
    • 3,300 Posts
    • 2,237 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    If i post a copy of my defence is there anyone i can ask to have a look to see if it holds up?
    many thanks
    Originally posted by koby83
    See post # 22
    • koby83
    • By koby83 6th Oct 18, 5:11 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    koby83
    right so just a quick refresher...
    my car was parked on a car park that was free for 3hrs but overstayed by approx half an hour. They have anpr cameras and have sent me letters with pictures on showing mey car coming and going and the times. I am a member of the gym that offers this car park to their members for use (would this somehow help my defense?). I have an email i found from when i received the 1st penalty charge where i wrote to them and told them i would not pay and that i wanted proof that they held a contract for that land - they did not provide this.I have also emailed the landowner a few months back asking if they could intervene with this matter and they replied that because it was over a year ago that it happened they could not but they were aware of CEL causing many people a problem and were looking into finding a new car parking company as they were having so many complaints about this one (could i somehow use this in my defense?)
    right so here is what i have so far.....
    Defence is as follows:

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: --------

    Between:

    Civil Enforcement Limited v -------

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

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

    1. The Claim Form issued on 01/10/2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not(is this supposed to be the original date of fine or the date I got the claim form?)
    correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited” (Claimant’s Legal Representative).

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. 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 identical '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.(can I say this if I have a letter with pictures of my car entering and leaving the car park?)
    3. 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.
    4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    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 mentioned a possible 276.76 for outstanding debt and damages.
    Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
    5. 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 (or even admin) costs” were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

    a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

    b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

    c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    (ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.(I need to double check that this is true)
    (iii) It is believed the signage 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 an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
    d) CEL CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds 100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    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.

    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 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.
    (Can I say this for my case?)
    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 1st October 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.(can I say this in my case?)

    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.
    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


    ANY GOOD?
    DO I NEED TO ADD OR AMEND ANYTHING?
    i am eternally grateful for any help you can provide
    Last edited by koby83; 12-10-2018 at 10:17 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Oct 18, 5:38 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,677 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I have also emailed the landowner a few months back asking if they could intervene with this matter and they replied that because it was over a year ago that it happened they could not but they were aware of CEL causing many people a problem and were looking into finding a new car parking company as they were having so many complaints about this one (could i somehow use this in my defense?)
    Oh yes! Absolutely.

    It shows the charge is predatory and not based on any legitimate interest or commercial justification.

    And those words are VERY important for you to know, and use, because it was that, plus clear signs, that meant ParkingEye were able to beat their (innocent party - he did nothing wrong) selected victim, Barry Beavis.

    The Claim Form issued on 01/10/2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not(is this supposed to be the original date of fine or the date I got the claim form?)
    Neither, it's the date top right on the Claim Form itself, the ''date issued''.

    You can only use this (below) if your earlier appeal did NOT imply who was driving:
    3. 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 a registered keeper Defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions.
    This needs to say driver, if you have never said who that was!
    6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the driver Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
    This tells us you have looked at an old CEL template - remove it:
    (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.(can I say this in my case?)
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 06-10-2018 at 5:46 PM.
    • koby83
    • By koby83 10th Oct 18, 8:14 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    koby83
    thanks for your advice up to yet
    just trying to edit my defense....

    can i argue point number 2 on my defense (see above) if my letters say i am being fined for breach of terms and conditions?

    can i argue point 2a if i have a letter from CEL saying "in accordance with pre action conduct and protocol for debt claims, we wish to give you a final opportunity to settle your debt"

    can i argue point 2d if they have sent photos?

    point 3... i have a letter from CEL saying that there is no legal requirement for them to send out a PCN within 14 days of the incident as there is no reference to POFA on the ticket. Is this true/correct? should i remove this?

    the 3 points listed under CEL cop breaches = do they make sense? shall i delete that bit, am i duplicating things?
    should i leave point 9 out?
    also should i add a bit about them actually proving i was parked over the allotted time and say i could of been looking for a space or queuing to get off the car park or would i be better concentrating just on the points already made?
    i also aim to add this ...
    On contacting the landowner the defendant was informed that the landowner was trying to terminate their current parking control contract due to numerous problems with complaints from customers regarding unfair and unjust fines. The defendant feels that this proves that the charge is predatory and not based on any legitimate interest or commercial justification. Thus said the defendant is a long standing customer of the site in question as they hold a gym membership for a business on this site. The defendant is not aware if Civil Enforcement Ltd still hold a parking control contract for this site or ever had one as no proof of the matter has been provided.

    hope this makes sense and very grateful for your guidance
    • koby83
    • By koby83 12th Oct 18, 8:14 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    koby83
    should i refer to the beavis case in my defense?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Oct 18, 8:25 PM
    • 9,952 Posts
    • 10,256 Thanks
    KeithP
    should i refer to the beavis case in my defense?
    Originally posted by koby83
    Only if you can confidently argue the points you raise.
    .
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Oct 18, 8:28 PM
    • 8,886 Posts
    • 11,747 Thanks
    beamerguy
    should i refer to the beavis case in my defense?
    Originally posted by koby83
    BEAVIS v PARKING EYE in the Supreme Court
    Often, these companies make reference
    to the Parking Eye/Supreme court case ? They seem to
    think that this is the key for them to extort money from
    you.
    Barry Beavis took Parking Eye to court because he claimed
    the charges were unfair. The court said they were ... and
    that was it. So unless you are claiming that the charge
    was unfair, the Supreme court decision has no bearing
    on you
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 18, 8:40 PM
    • 19,697 Posts
    • 24,978 Thanks
    Redx
    reading your post #25 defence , its not clear if this is a DRIVER defence or a KEEPER defence (POFA2012 only protects a keeper, not a driver)


    once you have decided which type of defence it is , edit your post and defence accordingly


    it may well be that CEL have failed POFA2012 but if the driver has been dobbed in then POFA2012 arguments are irrelevant
    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
    • koby83
    • By koby83 12th Oct 18, 9:10 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    koby83
    i was under the impression that if i didnt say if i was the driver or not i could use that in my defense by saying i am the keeper of the vehicle but cannot be sure if it was me driving on the day as the day in question is over 2 years ago.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 18, 9:41 PM
    • 19,697 Posts
    • 24,978 Thanks
    Redx
    you can, but if you read your posts in this thread they have outed the driver, even in your starting post over on page 1


    as I said, you need to make up your mind, plus only use the word defence with no S in it, as you keep swapping between the two


    if its a KEEPER based defence, then the driver should not be admitted on a public internet forum
    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
    • koby83
    • By koby83 12th Oct 18, 9:59 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    koby83
    i think i have my final defence (spell check keeps putting it as defense!) is it ok to post it again to get it checked before i upload it on moneyclaim online website as i am more confused than ever...
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 18, 10:03 PM
    • 19,697 Posts
    • 24,978 Thanks
    Redx
    change your system and spell checker to UK and not usa

    yes , post your revised defence on here for critique

    also go through every one of your posts on here in this thread and state "THE DRIVER" for what happened on the day and "THE KEEPER" or THE DEFENDANT" for anything SINCE that day

    also open your defence post below with a header stating it is a KEEPER defence if its a keeper version, or DRIVER if its from the drivers perspective
    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
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Oct 18, 10:13 PM
    • 9,952 Posts
    • 10,256 Thanks
    KeithP
    i think i have my final defence (spell check keeps putting it as defense!) is it ok to post it again to get it checked before i upload it on moneyclaim online website as i am more confused than ever...
    Originally posted by koby83
    Absolutely amazed that you are considering filing your Defence via MCOL.

    Bargepole's walkthrough linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread explains why that is not a good idea.

    Instead, can I respectfully suggest you re-read post #11 in this thread.
    .
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 18, 10:18 PM
    • 19,697 Posts
    • 24,978 Thanks
    Redx
    no wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy would I be using the MCOL portal


    email pdf attachment is the weapon of choice, and KeithP has already explained it earlier, like he has done in dozens of other threads on here
    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
    • koby83
    • By koby83 12th Oct 18, 10:26 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    koby83
    yes i will email a pdf that is what i meant. So here is my keeper defence i think....
    i cant decide if i should put myself as driver or keeper - reading this which do you think is best?
    i do still need to polish the layout and numbering a bit but in essence this is what it would be...
    do i need to add or remove anything?
    many thanks......


    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: --------

    Between:

    Civil Enforcement Limited v -------

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

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

    1. The Claim Form issued on 01/10/2018 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” (Claimant’s Legal Representative).

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. 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 identical '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.

    3. 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 a registered keeper defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions.
    4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
    Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 21012 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 mentioned a possible 276.76 for outstanding debt and damages. It also states that charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken.
    Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
    5. 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 60 “legal representative’s (or even admin) costs” were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.
    6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the driver then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
    a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
    c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver
    (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) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (iii) It is believed the signage 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 an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. They are also so faded they are barely readable. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
    Civil Enforcement Ltd breaches -:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, readability,lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds 100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
    On contacting the landowner the defendant was informed that the landowner was trying to terminate their current parking control contract with Civil Enforcement Ltd due to numerous problems with complaints from customers regarding unfair and unjust fines. Thus said the defendant is a long standing customer of the site in question as they hold a gym membership for a business on this site. The defendant is not aware if Civil Enforcement Ltd still hold a parking control contract for this site or ever had one as no proof of the matter has been provided.

    9. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification.
    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 1st October 2018.

    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.
    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
    Last edited by koby83; 12-10-2018 at 11:17 PM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 18, 10:34 PM
    • 19,697 Posts
    • 24,978 Thanks
    Redx
    if 3) stays in then its a KEEPER appeal, in which case ensure the following words "MY , ME , MYSELF & I" are NOT USED in any of your posts on here, PPC,s are nosey and can easily screenshot posts and threads and use them as evidence later

    these can be used

    DRIVER , KEEPER , CLAIMANT , DEFENDANT , etc
    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
    • koby83
    • By koby83 12th Oct 18, 10:49 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    koby83
    so do i need to state at the top that it is a keeper defence?
    Does the rest seem ok?
    Im not sure whether to include a bit that says about the fine is supposedly for staying over 3hrs parked, The driver may have spent time looking for a space/queuing to get off the car park so the anpr has only recorded the vehicle coming and going it is not an indicator of the length of time parked!! or just leave it as is!
    Last edited by koby83; 12-10-2018 at 11:18 PM.
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

2,045Posts Today

8,677Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Pownerpuff: @MartinSLewis thanks to your guidance, my monthly outgoings (bills) are £400 cheaper PER MONTH than they were 2 years ago!!?

  • The programme is primarily aimed at parents not kids. But I think mid teens upwards is likely fine https://t.co/SIJczfKJW8

  • Even if u don't have kids, Id love u to watch my 10 things ur kids need to know doco tonight ITV 9pm. It mixes mone? https://t.co/YIqNbllX8h

  • Follow Martin