**DISCONTINUED** Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

[Bluegerry]

Received a claim? Yes
Issue Date: 10-10-2017
Amount approx: 330
Claimant: Civil Enforcement
Solicitor:
Original Credit:

Particulars of Claim:


Stat Barred? No

Have sent: Acknowledged the Claim

Other Info:
We received this claim. It would appear to be for a parking violation, however, I am not aware of any parking charge invoice received. The claim says they will submit detailed particulars.
I have acknowledge the request, however, have not requested any information as yet. Should I ask for evidence or wait 14 days?

[charitynjw]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

Hi & welcome to LB

Personally I would wait for the detailed PoC.
They not only need to send it by the deadline, they also have to file a certificate of service (form N215) at court within 14 days of service.
How are they claiming £330?

[R0b]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

Just a thought to add on to Charity's post, I personally wouldn't wait. I would contact the court to see if they have received any documentation but at the same time chase CEL for a copy of those detailed particulars. More about being proactive than having to potentially set aside a default judgment where you could have taken steps to enable you to file a defence.

[Bluegerry]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

Hi & welcome to LB

Personally I would wait for the detailed PoC.
They not only need to send it by the deadline, they also have to file a certificate of service (form N215) at court within 7 days of service.
How are they claiming £330?

Thanks for the reply.

It is made up of amount of claim £236 - Due date 23/11/16, then Interest at a rate of 8%, £17, a total of £253, add court fee of £25 and Legal representative cost of £50 - a total of £328 (I m ignoring the pence and also rounded it to £330 in my previous post).

[ostell]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

It's the claim amount of 236 that's interesting. If they are claiming from you as the keeper POFA provides that the keeper is not liable for any more than was due on the day before the NTK, basically the amount on the NTK.

It is rumoured that CEL will delay the PoC and if the defendant has waited and not acknowledged then CEL go in for a default judgement after the 14 days. Naughty.

[Bluegerry]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

It's the claim amount of 236 that's interesting. If they are claiming from you as the keeper POFA provides that the keeper is not liable for any more than was due on the day before the NTK, basically the amount on the NTK.

It is rumoured that CEL will delay the PoC and if the defendant has waited and not acknowledged then CEL go in for a default judgement after the 14 days. Naughty.

Thanks - Mmmm, obviously working to a plan... I has thrown me completely as it seems one can get into trouble so easily. - What does NTK stand for?

Another question - I notice the date of the claim -10/10. If I add 33 days, I get to Sunday 12 Nov. Is it then correct to assume that I have to submit my defence by Monday 13 Nov latest?

I will post my CPR31.14 letter tonight. I assume I can just use the reference they used on the claim as there are no details of any documents, contract etc?

- - - Updated - - -

Just a thought to add on to Charity's post, I personally wouldn't wait. I would contact the court to see if they have received any documentation but at the same time chase CEL for a copy of those detailed particulars. More about being proactive than having to potentially set aside a default judgment where you could have taken steps to enable you to file a defence.

Thanks. will get a letter out to them tonight.

[ostell]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

NTK = Notice to Keeper, the letterr you get to inform you that they think you owe them some money.

[charitynjw]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

I notice the date of the claim -10/10. If I add 33 days, I get to Sunday 12 Nov. Is it then correct to assume that I have to submit my defence by Monday 13 Nov latest?

Yes.....4pm latest.

[Bluegerry]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

Hi, I have received as evidence of the claim a "Statement of Truth" from CIL and a "Schedule of Information"

The Statement of Truth states.

1. The claimant manage the car park and the car park is private property.
2. The claimant uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (APNR) at the entrance and exit of the car park which identify the arrival and departure time of vehicles from the car park.
3. There are many clear and visible signs in the Car Park advising drivers of the terms and condition of use. Drivers are permitted in the car park in accordance with the terms displayed and the signs constitute an offer by the claimant to enter into a contract with drivers.
4. The key terms is summarised in the attached schedule. (it says "Authorised drivers only")
5. When the defendant parked their vehicle they accepted, by their conduct, the terms and conditions and refer to `Vine v Waltham Forest LBC.
6 The Defendant breached the terms and conditions of the site, as such liable to pay amounts as set out in the schedule of information.
7. The Supreme Court Judgement in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis has established that it is both legal and commercially justifiable for car park operators to implement a disincentive so to effectively manage the car park. Our charges are neither extravagant nor unconcionable, and fall within the BPA guidelines as stated in their code of Practice.
8. The claimant (directly or through its agents) was left with no alternative but to escalate the matter as a result of non-payment of the debt, which further increased the amount owed, in accordance with the terms of parking.
9. The claimant claims the amounts owed, plus court and legal fees, interest, pursuant to section 69 of the County Court Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to the claimant as such a rate, for such a period the court thinks fit.

It's then signed as a statement of truth.

The Schedule of Information details my name as the defendant, their name and my car reg no. The date of the Incident was 23 November 16 arrival time at +- 7.30 and left at 9.30, site details, the amount of the claim and summary of terms "Authorised vehicles only".

I will have to consult all drivers of the vehicle and my memory not that great going back almost a year. I does not appear that we received a notice of the original fine and I therefore don't know what it was, when it was payable. I will go this evening down to the site to see notices etc, however, this happened so far in the past and any issues other drivers may have had may have been fixed now. I went through my old mail received during the year and did found a letter from Wright Hassal - I think at the time I thought it was scam letter due to the time of the parking offence at 21.30. It was also on behalf of a company called ZZPS.

We also had an issue last year as well with a fine at our local Harvester where I was fined when I went to pick up my son one evening and had to wait 15 minutes for them to bring the bill, so I think I thought it was related to that - I refused to pay that particular fine and has never been back to the Harvester again...

I will consult diaries to see why the car was parked there that late in the evening (we have a 5 year old and don't go out late often) and go and take copies of their terms in the car park, however, I would like to know if this is sufficient evidence of the claim against me and what my next step should be? I guess not receiving the original parking invoice not a good enough excuse?

[OliverJames]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

Hi @Bluegerry - I would recommend reading my thread here - http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...etter-Received
@charitynjw & [MENTION=39331]ostell[/MENTION] have given me so much info on an almost identical claim, so no point in repeating! I have also uploaded a draft of my defence there so you could possibly use some of that information?

People here are ridiculously helpful and knowledgable so you're in the right place

[Bluegerry]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

Thanks [MENTION=61850]OliverJB[/MENTION].

I will post my CPR letter today. I have already posted one only referencing the general claim number, however, will include asking for.
1. Copies of any postal communication sent prior to the alleged offence2. A copy of authority with the landowner, or if there is a chain of authorities, all relevant contracts between parties, to operate parking services on the relevant land.3. A copy of your KADOE contract with the DVLA4. A more detailed breakdown of the amount claimed on the court claim form

Should I ask for any APNR photo evidence as well at this stage?

Thanks for all your help.

[charitynjw]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

Yes, ask for any photo evidence.

You posted on 3rd Nov that you have received detailed particulars.
When did you get them (date), what date is stated on them & did you keep the envelope?

[Bluegerry]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

Yes, ask for any photo evidence.

You posted on 3rd Nov that you have received detailed particulars.
When did you get them (date), what date is stated on them & did you keep the envelope?

I received it on Friday the 3rd November 2017. The date on their documentation is dated 11 October 2017. Can't find the envelope at the moment...

[charitynjw]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

Usual CEL nonsense.

They have probably found out that the court claim was acknowledged within the deadline & have sent out a backdated PoC to make it appear as though they have complied with the CPR.
If you can find the envelope, the date of posting will reveal the untruth of that little ruse.

[Bluegerry]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement / - 10-10-2017

Draft response - I used most of [MENTION=61850]OliverJames[/MENTION] framework. However, I am still living at the address...

I drove past the parking area - there are signs up that says "Authorised Parking Only". Apparently one has to enter your registration number into a machine in the entrance area to get "authorised" to park there. I have not taken any pictures and obviously don't know if that was the arrangement now almost a year ago...

By the way, Defence of Defense?

Draft below.

Introduction

1. 1. I am XXX, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX. I reside at XXX

1. 2. This is my statement of truth and my defense

1. 3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.

1. 4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a XXXXXX, registered number XXXX XXX. I can neither confirm or deny who was driving on the day in question as it is a considerable time since the event.

1. 5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the purported debt arose as the result of the issue of a parking charge notice in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the above vehicle when it was parked at XXXX Place Car Park XXX on 23/11/2016 from 19:36 to 21:32.

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

1. 6. The Defendant is seriously prejudiced due to delay by the Claimant not serving their Particulars of Claim in a timely fashion.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. a) In addition, the Claimant has not responded to an offer, by the Defendant, of a 28 day extension as allowed by Civil Procedure Rules.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. b) The Defendant has therefore had insufficient time or disclosure information to assess the legal position in regards to this claim, and has been forced to file a defence without being given due time to properly respond to it.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. c) Should the court not strike out the claim per para (b) above, the Defendant requests that an amended defense can be submitted if necessary and at that the Claimant should bear any associated costs of the amendment.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 7. The claimant backdated the Particulars of Claim to imply that they were sent earlier than they actually were. The document is dated 11^th October 2017, but arrived at the Claimants address on 3rd November 2017.

a. Even if sent by Royal Mail second class delivery this would have arrived on the 13^th October. It is unrealistic to believe the delivery time would have exceeded 20 days.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 8. The Defendant, as a litigant in Person, believes that CPR PD 16 7.3 is applicable. This states that:-

7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:
(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing
A copy of the site signage (as it was displayed at 23/11/2016), of which it is common ground that the alleged contract is based on same, was not served with the separate detailed Particulars of Claim.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 9. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defense 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 defense. 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.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the practice Direction.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information, omitting any photographs of the signage that was in place at the time of the alleged offence, or images of the vehicle or driver.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 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. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. e) The Defense therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge (ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage) (iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. (iv) proof of the vehicle being parked at XXXX Car Park XXX on 23/11/2016 along with proof of a parking charge notice correctly displayed on the vehicle
               2. (v) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
               3. (vi) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
               4. (vii) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
               5. (viii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defense.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 10. 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.

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 as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible sum for outstanding debt and damages.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 11. 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 and I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 12. 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. None of this applies in this material case.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 13. 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.

1. 1. 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.

1. 1. 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.

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

1. 1. 1. (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.
      2. (ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
      3. (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 by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
      4. (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.
      5. (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection or damages as additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

1. 1. 1. (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
      2. (ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
      3. (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

1. 1. 1. 14. 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.

1. 1. 1. 15. 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.

1. 1. 1. 16. 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.

1. 1. 1. 17. 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.

1. 1. 1. 18. In the Beavis case, Mr Beavis was an admitted driver who accepted that he had seen the signs and that a contract existed. None of those facts match this matter.

1. 1. 1. 19. Due to the excessive length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the days in question, which were unremarkable. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car almost a year 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 registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

1. 1. 1. 1. (a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 10th October 2017.

1. 1. 1. 1. (b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed



XXX

Date: