CCC from Civil Enforcement Ltd - Draft Defence

[chantry5283]

Hi there, I am a relative newbie so please bear with me!

To give a bit of background:Vehicle keeper received a parking charge notice in September last year after parking at a 'Sainsburies local' to assist an elderly gentleman who suffers from Alzheimers with shopping. Car park is not owned by Sainsburies or Civil Enforcement Ltd (The Claimant.) Car park signs state 'free parking 45 minutes.' It is alleged that the vehicle outstayed the 45 minute period by 18 minutes.

Up until now January 2018 all correspondence was ignored, an appeal was then submitted directly to CEL which was rejected. Since then all subsequent correspondence has been ignored until this week when a County Court Claim form was received from Northampton Business Centre

Defendant has submitted an AoS stating intent to defend the claim. Below is an initial draft of the defence. Any comments/critique would be very much appreciated! Points to note re the Claim:
1. CEL is not the land owner nor have they evidenced permission to bring charges on behalf of the landowner
2. BPA CoP states that BPA Code of Practice Section 20 (20.5a) states: ‘when issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. CEL has failed to provide any evidence that the car was even in the car park. The photgraphs sent simply show the vehicle on a stretch of road which could be anywhere
3. CEL is claiming £136 in 'debt and damages' over and above the initial £100 parking charge. These charges are unqualified.

Thanks advance for reading


I XXX Defendant in this matter was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged contravention. I deny that the Claimant is entitled to the sum or any part of the amount claimed, and deny liability for this claim in its entirety.

1. The Claim form issued on 17^th October 2018 by Civil Enforcement Ltd has been incorrectly filed under The Practice Direction. Which states that The Statement of Truth, where the Claimant is a registered company or corporation must be signed by either a director of other officer of the company. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer. The Claim form issued on 17^th October by Civil Enforcement Ltd is signed Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimants legal representative)

1. Civil Enforcement Ltd are not the owner or occupier of the land therefore they do not have the authority to bring charges on this land in their own name, they have no rights to bring this case, or even to allege any breach of contract CEL has failed to evidence a dated, signed contemporaneous copy of the actual agreement/contract with the landowner giving them the relevant authority to issues proceedings on behalf of the landowner as required by the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

1. Furthermore the Claimant has provided no indication as to the legal basis of this claim, whether it be 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 of otherwise

1. The Particulars of Claim state that Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T+Cs of use. 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

1. BPA Code of Practice Section 20 (20.5a) states: ‘when issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.’ The images purporting to evidence the alleged contravention as supplied on the Parking Charge Notice do not sufficiently demonstrate that the vehicle was even in the car park, showing only the vehicle, the road and a brick wall. The images are not time stamped therefore are evidence of nothing more than the vehicle in question travelling in two different directions on a nondescript stretch of road at an undisclosed time. This is a clear breach of the Claimants obligations under the British Parking Associations Code of Practice

1. The Claimant has given no explanation as to how they have arrived at the sum of calculated The additional sum of £136 for ‘debt and damages’ This appears to be a cost with no apparent qualification and an attempt at double recovery In accordance with The Protection of Freedom Act Paragraph 4 (5) The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper

1. No figure for additional charges has been ‘agreed’ nor could they have been included as part of the alleged ‘contract’ because no such costs have been quantified on the signs or on any of the subsequent correspondence from the Claimant

1. The defendant refutes that the Claimant is entitled to claim £50 legal representation costs CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. In Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

The defendant believes that the claim has no merit or reasonable prospects of success and invites the court to strike out the claim.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true

[ostell]

So if you still have the original PCN that was received by the keeper then post it up here. Have you got pictures of the signs?

Have you acknowledged the claim using the details and password on the form? If not do so now but put nothing in the defence. This gives you 33 days from date of issue to get your defence to the court.

I fear you defence may not be sufficient. Have a look on the fightback forum and MSE for CEL defences,

They are permitted to claim up to £50 for legal costs.

[chantry5283]

So if you still have the original PCN that was received by the keeper then post it up here. Have you got pictures of the signs?

Have you acknowledged the claim using the details and password on the form? If not do so now but put nothing in the defence. This gives you 33 days from date of issue to get your defence to the court.

I fear you defence may not be sufficient. Have a look on the fightback forum and MSE for CEL defences,

They are permitted to claim up to £50 for legal costs.

Thank you very much for your response. I do have the original PCN and pictures of the signs would you be kind enough to tell me how to upload them here and I will happluy do so,

I have acknowledged the claim as per above, my defense is based on some examples of CEL defences I have seen on MSE forum

[chantry5283]

Sorry another point - Their Letter before Claim, which I received but did not respond to, was not signed! and is inaacurate/incomplete It refers to 'Key terms of the signs are summarised in attached Schedule of Information' there was no such schedule of information sent. Is this of any relevance now that the LBC stage has passed?

[ostell]

The missing information just shows how incompetent they can be.

Click on the gear wheel symbol in the edit to get the full set of options and either click on the picture item and upload a picture to this site or upload your pictures to a picture hosting site and then provide a link to them. The latter is preferred.

[chantry5283]

I’m having problems uploading the pics. I have uploaded to tiny pic but the URL is not recognized. I will try again be Later. Thanks for your help

[Amethyst]

You can email them to me if you like admin@legalbeagles.info and I'll get them posted for you

[chantry5283]

Thanks so much! I have emailed them to you

[Amethyst]

Here we go

[chantry5283]

Thanks so much!

[ostell]

Glad you posted that up. Hopefully the driver has not been identified and so:

• The defendant admits that they were the keeper of the vehicle at the time.
• The claimant, in their original Parking Charge Notice, (PCN) has stated that the notice is issued under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
• The claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of POFA and as such they cannot transfer liability from the driver at the time to the keeper, the defendant.
  • Contrary to POFA 9 (2) (a) there is no period of parking given. Time between the cameras, when the vehicle is moving, cannot, by definition, be classed as parking
  • Contrary to POFA 9 2) (b) failed to inform the keeper that the driver is liable for the charge and they have not been paid.
  • Contrary to POFA 9 (2) (c) failed to state why the parking charge was due from the keeper.
  • Contrary to POFA 9 (2) (f) failed to warn the keeper that they could be liable after 28 days
  • Contrary to POFA 9 (2) (h) failed to identify the creditor.
  • Contrary to POFA 9 (2) (i) failed to identify the date the notice was sent.
  • Contrary to POFA 9 (4) failed to deliver the Notice to Keeper within the relevant period. The relevant period is defined as 14 days, as defined in POFA 9 (5). POFA 9 (6) presumes that delivery is made 2 working days after posting. The claimant has not given a date of posting or sending but using the issue date of 28/09, a Thursday, then it is assumed to be delivered two working days later on 02/10, the following Monday. This is 15 days after the parking event and therefore not within the relevant period
• It is believed that the claimant does not have a contract to take legal action against the defendant. If the the claimant avers that they do have the authority then the defendant requests that the relevant contract is provided and not a mere witness statement saying that a contract exists.

The failing to deliver in time should be the best defence. You can add the other defence points you have raised.

Some of the required statements might be on the payment slip, please check, but there was a court case where it was ruled that the payment slip a separate document and not part of the PCN. Sorry, can't remember any further details

[chantry5283]

Once again cannot thank you enough for your advice! This is all completely overwhelming.
After i received the Letter before Claim (i naively) emailed them explaining the situation (Helping Elderly grandfather with Alzheimers.) Hoping that they might close the matter, Therefore I fear the defence from POFA perspective may not hold up?

[ostell]

They might remember that or may not, they are usually inefficient. What did the LBC say they were claiming for and against whom?

Have you considered the Equality Act (someone will give the full title) in that they have to make additional allowances, like extra time, to cope with the disabled.

[chantry5283]

The LBC has not even been signed properly and refers to key terms and conditions on ‘the attached schedule’ which was not attached!!! They are obviously incompetent