Tweet
Hi Everyone,
I would be really grateful if someone could help me with writing a defence statement, defending a Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement Ltd. In a nutshell, here is my situation:
1. Original PCN did not arrive according to the BPA CoP (however, I wasn't aware of this until much later so didn't appeal- I ignored it instead
)
2. After receiving various Reminders and Debt Collector's letters, I received Solicitor's letter so I emailed (after researching on here and realising I should have done this ages ago) saying I wasn't the driver and wasn't obligated to tell them who was and that they were in breach of the BPA's COP. I received a reply email saying they would inform their client. I then heard nothing for 6 months.
3. I received a claim form with the POC detailed. Date of issue 8/3/18, I received it 9/3/18
4. I have responded to the MCOL but left the defence box blank as I know that now I have a bit of time to prepare a defence.
5. I have drafted a defence, by searching on various forums and finding others whose situation is similar and taking bits that are relevant, but to be honest, there are some parts that I THINK apply to me but can't be 100% sure because I don't really know what it means! Any help on this would be amazing!
Here it is:
In the County Court Business Centre
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited
vs
[Removed]
Regarding claim number [removed]
I [removed] deny that I am liable to the claimant for the entirety of this claim for each of the following reasons:
1: The Claimant has no standing to bring a case.
2. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist.
3. Failure to comply with pre-court protocol.
4. Claim not correctly filed under The Practice Direction
5. Notice to Keeper does not comply with BPA Code of Practice Section 4
6. Falsified solicitor costs
1. The claimant has no standing to bring a case.
a. The particulars of claim state that “At all material times the Claimant managed the car park. They are therefore acting as agents of the landowner.
b. It is believed Civil Enforcement Ltd 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.
c. 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.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
i. Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 11th October 2017.
ii. Sent a template, well-known to be poorly mail-merged, copy and pasted ‘Particulars of claim’ which ignore the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
iii. Failed to issue a compliant notice to keeper within 14 days under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 such that Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
2. The claimant has failed to provide any proof of adequate signage. 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. In the absence of any 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. It is believed that the claimant provided 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. It is believed the signage was not transparent or legible – being deliberately placed several feet above the average person’s height; 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.
iii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer neither known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
3. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). 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.
e) The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
f) These documents, and the ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
i. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
ii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
iii. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.’
iv. early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute.
The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
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)
iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
Once these particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
4. The Claim Form issued on 8/3/2018 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”.
5. 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. Additionally, during early communications of appeal with the Claimant they specifically stated that they would not be relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in this case, waiving their right to seek keeper liability.
6. The claim includes a sum of £50, described as ‘Solicitor’s costs’. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant. Given a standard working week, the claimant’s legal representative can spend no more than a few minutes per claim, hardly justifying the £50. Since these are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant maintains case notes for each person who has accessed the case, and it is suggested this would be sufficient. The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen’s Letter Patent (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no ‘expert services’ are involved. The £50 is not valid because it is not incurred by the claimant.
The Defendant denies being the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident. Given the Claimant’s failure to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they have not transferred liability from the driver to the keeper (the Defendant). The Defendant is not therefore liable for the claim and invites the court to strike it out.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
I would be really grateful if someone could help me with writing a defence statement, defending a Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement Ltd. In a nutshell, here is my situation:
1. Original PCN did not arrive according to the BPA CoP (however, I wasn't aware of this until much later so didn't appeal- I ignored it instead
)2. After receiving various Reminders and Debt Collector's letters, I received Solicitor's letter so I emailed (after researching on here and realising I should have done this ages ago) saying I wasn't the driver and wasn't obligated to tell them who was and that they were in breach of the BPA's COP. I received a reply email saying they would inform their client. I then heard nothing for 6 months.
3. I received a claim form with the POC detailed. Date of issue 8/3/18, I received it 9/3/18
4. I have responded to the MCOL but left the defence box blank as I know that now I have a bit of time to prepare a defence.
5. I have drafted a defence, by searching on various forums and finding others whose situation is similar and taking bits that are relevant, but to be honest, there are some parts that I THINK apply to me but can't be 100% sure because I don't really know what it means! Any help on this would be amazing!
Here it is:
In the County Court Business Centre
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited
vs
[Removed]
Regarding claim number [removed]
I [removed] deny that I am liable to the claimant for the entirety of this claim for each of the following reasons:
1: The Claimant has no standing to bring a case.
2. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist.
3. Failure to comply with pre-court protocol.
4. Claim not correctly filed under The Practice Direction
5. Notice to Keeper does not comply with BPA Code of Practice Section 4
6. Falsified solicitor costs
1. The claimant has no standing to bring a case.
a. The particulars of claim state that “At all material times the Claimant managed the car park. They are therefore acting as agents of the landowner.
b. It is believed Civil Enforcement Ltd 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.
c. 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.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
i. Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 11th October 2017.
ii. Sent a template, well-known to be poorly mail-merged, copy and pasted ‘Particulars of claim’ which ignore the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
iii. Failed to issue a compliant notice to keeper within 14 days under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 such that Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
2. The claimant has failed to provide any proof of adequate signage. 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. In the absence of any 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. It is believed that the claimant provided 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. It is believed the signage was not transparent or legible – being deliberately placed several feet above the average person’s height; 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.
iii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer neither known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
3. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). 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.
e) The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
f) These documents, and the ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
i. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
ii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
iii. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.’
iv. early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute.
The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
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)
iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
Once these particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
4. The Claim Form issued on 8/3/2018 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”.
5. 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. Additionally, during early communications of appeal with the Claimant they specifically stated that they would not be relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in this case, waiving their right to seek keeper liability.
6. The claim includes a sum of £50, described as ‘Solicitor’s costs’. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant. Given a standard working week, the claimant’s legal representative can spend no more than a few minutes per claim, hardly justifying the £50. Since these are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant maintains case notes for each person who has accessed the case, and it is suggested this would be sufficient. The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen’s Letter Patent (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no ‘expert services’ are involved. The £50 is not valid because it is not incurred by the claimant.
The Defendant denies being the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident. Given the Claimant’s failure to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they have not transferred liability from the driver to the keeper (the Defendant). The Defendant is not therefore liable for the claim and invites the court to strike it out.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
Comment