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
    • dieseldo
    • By dieseldo 8th Nov 18, 4:42 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 2Thanks
    dieseldo
    newbie CEL county court letter
    • #1
    • 8th Nov 18, 4:42 PM
    newbie CEL county court letter 8th Nov 18 at 4:42 PM
    hi, I received a county court letter, for 336, CEL are the claimants. i have applied the 14 day extension which expires 13/11/2018,
    i realise now i should have joined this forum earlier and used the steps detailed, with time running out can anyone reccomend a template i can alter that best fits my needs (details of the case below). TIA

    I am a taxi driver for uber,in july 2017 i received a pickup from miller & carter, wilmslow, i entered the car park at 08:25am, after waiting 10 minutes outside the locked entrance, i received a message from the customer indicating she would be out in 5 mins. the customer came from the side of the building (looked like one of the cleaners), and i left the car park at 8:43am. a short while later i received the parking charge from CEL.

    I haven't conversed or contacted CEL but i did appeal to POPLA using the details above as the basis of my appeal, which i obviously i lost. Any advice would be greatly appreciated as time is running out to defend this claim
Page 1
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 8th Nov 18, 5:03 PM
    • 3,769 Posts
    • 6,179 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #2
    • 8th Nov 18, 5:03 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Nov 18, 5:03 PM
    Don't worry. It is only paperwork.

    There is some good advice in the Newbies thread about what to do. So have a look and come back if you are uncertain about the stages.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Nov 18, 5:41 PM
    • 63,839 Posts
    • 76,487 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 8th Nov 18, 5:41 PM
    • #3
    • 8th Nov 18, 5:41 PM
    with time running out can anyone recommend a template i can alter
    Search the forum for Civil Enforcement grace periods defence true

    And you should find a similar one to adapt. Show us! You have time.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Nov 18, 5:53 PM
    • 10,600 Posts
    • 10,983 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 8th Nov 18, 5:53 PM
    • #4
    • 8th Nov 18, 5:53 PM
    What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

    Can you please post the exact contents of the Particular of Claim box on the Claim Form - masking identifying info of course.
    .
    • dieseldo
    • By dieseldo 8th Nov 18, 7:47 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dieseldo
    • #5
    • 8th Nov 18, 7:47 PM
    particulars of claim
    • #5
    • 8th Nov 18, 7:47 PM
    What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

    Can you please post the exact contents of the Particular of Claim box on the Claim Form - masking identifying info of course.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    hi thanks for taking an interest,
    issue date 11/10/2018

    Particular of Claim

    Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claiments in breachof the terms + conditions (T+Cs). Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with the T+Cs of use. ANPR camera and/or manual patrols are usedto monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site. Debt + damages claim the sum of 236.00
    Violation date : 25/07/2017
    Time in : 08:25
    Time Out : 08:43
    Then the PCN Reference
    The Registration no
    Car Park :-miller & carter steakhouse

    Total due - 236.00
    (ref: their website address or Tel. 01158225020)
    The Claimant claims the sum of 258.86 for the monies relating to the parking charge per above including 22.86 interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Court Act 1984
    Rate 8% pa from dates above to 10/10/18
    Same rate to Judgement or (sooner) payment Daily rate to judgement - 0.05

    Total Debt and interest due 258.86

    Court fee : 25
    Legal representative costs : 50


    So a total of 333.86
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Nov 18, 7:54 PM
    • 10,600 Posts
    • 10,983 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #6
    • 8th Nov 18, 7:54 PM
    • #6
    • 8th Nov 18, 7:54 PM
    issue date 11/10/2018
    Originally posted by dieseldo
    I'll assume you did the Acknowledgement of Service before Tuesday 30th October.

    With a Claim Issue Date of 11th October, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 13th November 2018 to file your Defence.

    Just five days left to produce a Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

    1) Print your Defence.
    2) Sign it and date it.
    3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    .
    • dieseldo
    • By dieseldo 10th Nov 18, 6:17 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dieseldo
    • #7
    • 10th Nov 18, 6:17 PM
    • #7
    • 10th Nov 18, 6:17 PM
    i've spent many hours reading through a lot of material on here, and i've now put together, what I hope is a decent defence, any advice would be gratefully received, as I only have a couple of days before the expiry date. TIA.


    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    Claim No.: [INSERT]


    Between


    Civil Enforcement Ltd

    (Claimant)

    - And -

    [YOUR NAME]

    (Defendant)

    __________________________________________________ ____________
    DEFENCE
    __________________________________________________ ____________


    1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Miller & Carter, Wilmslow on 25 July 2017.

    1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's 100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

    2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time'.



    3. The Defendant was an occupant of the car, however, the Defendant had no idea about any ANPR surveillance and received no letters after the initial 'PCN' a vague document which gave no indication as to what the alleged breach actually was. No photographic evidence of the terms on signage has been supplied, not even in the postal PCN.

    3.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect 100 instead of the few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.

    4. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras at a restaurant car park where there would likely be no cars unconnected to patrons, no trespass nor 'unauthorised' parking events.

    4.1. It is not ethical to install a hidden ANPR camera data stream, against the rights and interests of thousands of unsuspecting but circumspect visitors to the restaurant, who are being caught out regularly by this trap.

    4.2. Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from 4 to 100 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.

    4.3. The Claimant will have some difficulty in justifying their hidden and unexpected terms at a site where the Defendant now learns from researching online reviews, that the Claimant has also added an unexpected and unwarranted (given the nature of the remote location) '4hr max stay' rule on top. These are not the 'brief, simple and prominently proclaimed' terms that convinced the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 to bend the penalty rule in that unique, fact-specific case only.

    4.4. These concealed restrictions are misleading and excessive and tip the balance so far against visitors that there is an imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, which is contrary to the listed Prohibitions in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

    5. Clearly there should be Civil Enforcement staff regularly onsite, who could reasonably enforce parking rules with drivers face to face, whilst managing the car park fairly and ensuring that any PDT machine is clear and obvious to drivers and not a hidden 'pitfall or trap'. The ANPR cameras represent disproportionate and excessive data processing, given the nature of this location, and the Claimant's DPO is put to strict proof of its data risk assessment and compliance with the Information Commissioners Office's ANPR surveillance camera Code of Practice.


    6. Due to the sparse details on the 'PCN' (taken to be a scam piece of junk mail, since it did not come from any Authority or the Police and arrived weeks later) and the equally lacking and embarrassing Particulars of Claim (POC) and the complete lack of any Letter before Claim, this Claimant afforded the Defendant no opportunity to take stock, obtain data, copy letters, and images of the contract on signage. There has been no chance to even understand the allegation, let alone discuss or dispute it prior to court action, as should have been the case under the October 2017 pre-action protocol for debt claims.

    6.1. The Defendant avers that the claim was premature and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the letters they say were sent and where they were posted to, after the PCN itself, and evidence from their case status data that a Letter before Claim and attachments required under the Protocol, were issued, and when/where they were sent.

    7. The Defendant requires a copy of the contract (the signage terms on the material date) and a full and detailed explanation of the cause of action and on what basis they purport to hold the Defendant liable. The POC alleges that the Defendant was 'the registered keeper and/or the driver' of the vehicle, indicating a failure to identify a Cause of Action. The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the POC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    8. The Defendant has sent a subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant, for response during November 2018, and will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement and evidence, once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.


    9. Due to the sparseness of the POC 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 breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    10. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

    10.1. The Defendant avers that the signage at the site in question is woefully inadequate and extremely confusing.

    10.2. The Civil Enforcement Ltd signs within the parking area are equally as hidden and therefore misleading. Furthermore there are no clear signs that were 'bound to be seen' between where the Defendant believes the car was parked and the entrance to the Hospital or the Ward.

    10.3. The PCN and POC could mean that the Claimant is suggesting the car overstayed paid for time, or even that a wrong VRN was recorded by the PDT keypad, and it is impossible for the Defendant to be certain about the alleged breach and to make an informed decision about what to say by way of defence, which puts the Defendant in a position of disadvantage.



    11. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation against patrons of the Restaraunt.




    12. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim. The driver has not been identified, the PDT machines and signs/terms are not prominent, the VRN data is harvested excessively by two automated but conflicting data systems and the PCN was sent very late with a 'parking charge' that bears no resemblance to the 4 'parking charge' tariff, and as such, this case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices.

    12.1. The Defendant avers that the factually-different Beavis decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the signage omission at the time and the other facts of this case. To quote from the Supreme Court:

    Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay 85''.

    Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of 85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

    Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''



    13. If the 'parking charge' (the first interpretation meaning the car park tariff) was unpaid, then the sum 'owed' is a quantifiable figure. The sum 'owed' was a small tariff of some 4. Had the Defendant been clearly alerted to the sum on the day - or even simpler, if they could have had the certainty of paying it when buying the Visitor entry tickets or had the 'parking charge' (tariff) been included within the entry fee itself - there would be no unfair penalty, and the resaraunt (or landowner) would gain in income and avoid any parking issues at all, including all the complaints mounting up online about Civil Enforcement Ltd.

    13.1. Instead, this Claimant is operating a punitive unjustified and excessively data-intrusive ANPR system to their own ends, which is not transparent to consumers. A hidden 'parking charge' of 4 unexpectedly becomes an extortionate 170 bill several weeks later (described also as the 'parking charge') and yet this is not the sort of 'complex' issue with a 'compelling' commercial justification that saved the charge in Beavis from the penalty rule.

    13.2. Taking the comments of the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal in the earlier hearing in Beavis) into account, the 'parking charge' sum owed in this case can, at most, only be 4 and there was ample opportunity to fairly collect and transparently advertise that sum on site, on the material day.

    13.3. This regime in a car park is believed to have changed 2016 is not commercially justified, is damaging the reputation of the restaurant, and is surely the epitome of unfairness and unconscionableness. Thus it cannot be excused from the penalty rule by any 'legitimate interest', both taking into account the GDPR data principles meaning and under the Beavis case definition. 13.4. At #22, in Beavis, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedin's speech in Dunlop: ''as Lord Dunedin himself acknowledged, the essential question was whether the clause impugned was unconscionable or extravagant. [...] The four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts.''

    13.4.1. And at #32: ''The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest {of ParkingEye} [...] In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin's four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

    13.5. The Court will be aware that Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty include the principle - which went unchallenged in the completely different 'free car park' considerations in the Beavis case - that: ''it will be held to be a penalty if the breach consists only in not paying a sum of money, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid''.

    14. Even if the court is minded to accept that the terms were clear and prominent, the 'parking charge' tariff was indisputably a 'standard contract', which would be subject to a simple damages clause to enable recovery of the sum that 'ought to have been paid' which was believed to be 4 and no more.

    14.1. No complicated manipulations of the penalty rule can apply to a standard contract like this one, with quantified damages, otherwise every trader could massage any 5 bill to suddenly become 258.86.

    14.2. In Beavis it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, as that would have failed. It was accepted that 85 was the sum for parking, and that was the 'parking charge' for want of any other monetary consideration in a free car park. It was not pleaded in damages, unlike here, where the sum for parking was just 4 and the Claimant is trying to claim damages of 258.56, no doubt hoping for a Judge who cannot properly interpret the intricacies of the Beavis case.

    15. Further, and in support of the view of the unconscionableness of this charge, given this set of facts, the Defendant avers that a breach of the data principles and failure to comply with ICO rules regarding data captured by ANPR, when added to the lack of clear signage, lack of Letter before Claim and sparse POC, transgresses the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    16. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of 50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

    16.1. Whilst 50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Civil Enforcement Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary, given the fact that their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

    17. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper (NTK) in this case 100. In the Beavis case, ParkingEye were only able to seek the only stated 'parking charge' sum on their NTK, since there was no quantifiable tariff.

    17.1. It is not accepted that the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements of the POFA to hold the Defendant liable as registered keeper (and for this they are put to strict proof) and nor is it accepted that 258.86 can be claimed instead of 4 in this case, but either way, the additional sum of 50 on top, appears to be a disingenuous attempt at double recovery.



    18. On the day in question (27July 2017 08:25am) the driver (an uber private hire driver) had been requested by uber, to pick up a customer from Miller & Carter, Wilmslow. (Uber can provide validity of this booking).
    19. The car park operates a reception registered, free parking, with ANPR equipped cameras. The establishment was locked and secure, with no access to register the car
    20. The customer (an employee of Miller & Carter) sent a text message indicating she would be out in a few minutes.
    21. The customer, came from the side of the building and entered the vehicle. The vehicle then left the car park at 08:43am.
    22. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success



    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


    Name

    Signature

    Date
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th Nov 18, 6:40 PM
    • 20,226 Posts
    • 31,900 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #8
    • 10th Nov 18, 6:40 PM
    • #8
    • 10th Nov 18, 6:40 PM
    Have you seen the model defence provided by legally qualified and highly experienced in fighting private parking charges - bargepole? You might want to weigh your current draft against his expert advice.

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74674865&postcount=24
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • dieseldo
    • By dieseldo 10th Nov 18, 7:23 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dieseldo
    • #9
    • 10th Nov 18, 7:23 PM
    bargepole
    • #9
    • 10th Nov 18, 7:23 PM
    Have you seen the model defence provided by legally qualified and highly experienced in fighting private parking charges - bargepole? You might want to weigh your current draft against his expert advice.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    thanks for your advice as i'm driving myself crazy constantly reading and not really understanding. would I just input my personal details into the defence below, or would I also explain my own reasons for defending as well. tia


    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company XXXX at XXXX Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. 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.

    4. 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. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

    6. 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.

    7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case 100. The claim includes an additional 60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Nov 18, 7:36 PM
    • 10,600 Posts
    • 10,983 Thanks
    KeithP
    Your Defence needs to fit your situation.

    There really is no need to show us Bargepole's Defence.

    We need to see your Defence if you want comments on it.
    .
    • dieseldo
    • By dieseldo 10th Nov 18, 8:26 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dieseldo
    Your Defence needs to fit your situation.

    There really is no need to show us Bargepole's Defence.

    We need to see your Defence if you want comments on it.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    I apologise for my lack of understanding, this is getting really confusing, I've stated the facts below, but as far as I can see the only defence I have, is that the establishment was closed, so there was no possibility to register, and also the signage couldn't have been very clear, as I didn't see it.


    On the day in question (27July 2017 08:25am) the driver (an uber private hire driver) had been requested by uber, to pick up a customer from Miller & Carter, Wilmslow. (Uber can provide validity of this booking).
    The car park operates a reception registered, free parking, with anpr equipped cameras. The establishment was locked and secure, with no access to register the car
    The customer (an employee of Miller & Carter) sent a text message indicating she would be out in a few minutes.
    The customer, came from the side of the building and entered the vehicle. The vehicle then left the car park at 08:43am.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Nov 18, 8:33 PM
    • 63,839 Posts
    • 76,487 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    but as far as I can see the only defence I have, is that the establishment was closed, so there was no possibility to register, and also the signage couldn't have been very clear, as I didn't see it.
    Perfectly decent defence points that point to an argument that there was no agreed contract.

    And this account (below) shows that in fact the car was never left parked, as this was a taxi pick up which MUST have been in the contemplation of the landowners at the time and to charge 100and sue over that normal activity, is not an understandable ingredient' of any parking regime backed by any legitimate interest:

    On the day in question (27July 2017 08:25am) the driver (an uber private hire driver) had been requested by uber, to pick up a customer from Miller & Carter, Wilmslow. (Uber can provide validity of this booking).
    The car park operates a reception registered, free parking, with anpr equipped cameras. The establishment was locked and secure, with no access to register the car
    The customer (an employee of Miller & Carter) sent a text message indicating she would be out in a few minutes.
    The customer, came from the side of the building and entered the vehicle. The vehicle then left the car park at 08:43am.
    It's not confusing. Use as a base, bargepole's template, adapted with YOUR facts, and you're there!

    Do you also have Google location, or telematics, or a dash cam with data saved from that day? That can all be used later at Witness Statement/evidence stage.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • dieseldo
    • By dieseldo 10th Nov 18, 8:55 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dieseldo
    Perfectly decent defence points that point to an argument that there was no agreed contract.

    And this account (below) shows that in fact the car was never left parked, as this was a taxi pick up which MUST have been in the contemplation of the landowners at the time and to charge 100and sue over that normal activity, is not an understandable ingredient' of any parking regime backed by any legitimate interest:



    It's not confusing. Use as a base, bargepole's template, adapted with YOUR facts, and you're there!

    Do you also have Google location, or telematics, or a dash cam with data saved from that day? That can all be used later at Witness Statement/evidence stage.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    thanks again, i'm going to take your advice and try my best, i don't have any google location etc. the only proof i can provide, is accessing my uber driver app and showing the job and time, or screenshotting the the phone screen, which shows all the details of the job. TIA
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Nov 18, 9:04 PM
    • 63,839 Posts
    • 76,487 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Sounds like perfect evidence for the later stages, to win the case.

    But for defence stage, just use as a base, bargepole's template, adapted with YOUR facts, and you're there!

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • dieseldo
    • By dieseldo 12th Nov 18, 10:14 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dieseldo
    Sounds like perfect evidence for the later stages, to win the case.

    But for defence stage, just use as a base, bargepole's template, adapted with YOUR facts, and you're there!

    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    fingers crossed, i'm getting close with this defence as the deadliune is getting close. any advice on wether this defence would have any chance would be gratefully appreciated.


    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. And this account (below) shows that in fact the car was never left parked, as this was a taxi pick up which MUST have been in the contemplation of the landowners at the time and to charge 100and sue over that normal activity, is not an understandable ingredient' of any parking regime backed by any legitimate interest:

    On the day in question (27July 2017 08:25am) the driver (an uber private hire driver) had been requested by uber, to pick up a customer from Miller & Carter, Wilmslow. (I can provide proof in person, by accessing my uber app or a screenshot of the app, both will show the job details).
    The car park operates a reception registered, free parking, with ANPR equipped cameras. The establishment was locked and secure, with no access to register the car
    The customer (an employee of Miller & Carter) sent a text message indicating she would be out in a few minutes.
    Shortly before 08:43am, the customer, came from the side of the building and entered the vehicle. The vehicle then left the car park at 08:43am.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant (my name);was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)(my name);. 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.

    4. 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. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

    6. 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.

    7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case 100. The claim includes an additional 60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
    In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of 50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

    10 Whilst 50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Civil Enforcement Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary, given the fact that their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.


    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Nov 18, 10:44 AM
    • 3,921 Posts
    • 4,715 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You have just copied and pasted, with the spelling errors included, from C-Ms post as your point 2

    A defence is a set of arguments
    Not a narrative.

    2) The defendants vehicle was never parked and no "parking contract" supposedly offered by the Claimant was accepted or entered into by performance. The vehicle was privately hired to pick up an employee from that location, arrived as requested at 8.25am and waited no longer than necessary to complete the pickup when the employee exited the building at 8.43am.

    As an example. While strictly the second sentence is not an argument, it does help give context to what was meant.
    • dieseldo
    • By dieseldo 12th Nov 18, 1:00 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dieseldo
    You have just copied and pasted, with the spelling errors included, from C-Ms post as your point 2

    A defence is a set of arguments
    Not a narrative.

    2) The defendants vehicle was never parked and no "parking contract" supposedly offered by the Claimant was accepted or entered into by performance. The vehicle was privately hired to pick up an employee from that location, arrived as requested at 8.25am and waited no longer than necessary to complete the pickup when the employee exited the building at 8.43am.

    As an example. While strictly the second sentence is not an argument, it does help give context to what was meant.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    firstly i apologise for my lack of understanding, are you saying i just keep it simple as far as the facts are concerned (as below),or do i try and elaborate my defence in point 2.or add more points,below 2 TIA


    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No:

    BETWEEN:

    CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The defendants vehicle was never parked and no "parking contract" supposedly offered by the Claimant was accepted or entered into by performance. The vehicle was privately hired to pick up an employee from that location, arrived as requested at 8.25am and waited no longer than necessary to complete the pickup when the employee exited the building at 8.43am.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant,(MY NAME), 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.

    4. 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. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

    6. 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.

    7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case 100. The claim includes an additional 60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    9.In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of 50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
    Whilst 50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Civil Enforcement Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary, given the fact that their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.
    In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name

    Signature

    Date 12 NOVEMBER 2018
    Last edited by dieseldo; 12-11-2018 at 9:04 PM. Reason: Rectified a couple of points
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

512Posts Today

5,515Users online

Martin's Twitter