Civil Enforcement Ltd & DCBL

[ecalid]

Hi all, just a quick update to keep you in the loop.

DQ's have been issued on the 15th so I'm just waiting for these to arrive in the post.

[ecalid]

Your defence was received on 19/06/2024

There we go, I can rest now.

[ecalid]

It is standard practice for a bar to be put in place when a defence has been filed to prevent the claimant obtaining a default
judgment

Good morning Des8,

I submitted the defence on Thursday, they still haven't updated the recent transactions field in the moneyclaim.

In your experience, how long should it take for them to update the claim with the received defence?


Many thanks.

[des8]

It is standard practice for a bar to be put in place when a defence has been filed to prevent the claimant obtaining a default
judgment

[ecalid]

Good afternoon des8

I've logged into money claim online today and saw this:

"A bar has been put in place on this claim. You cannot respond to the claim at this time."

I sent the defence last night around 10pm and the paper version has gone to the claimant today. Is this usual?

[des8]

Not if you have sent a hard copy

[ecalid]

IMO not necessary, but did you remember to serve a copy on claimant?

Good morning des8

This has been posted with recorded delivery today.

Do you think its worth sending a copy via email to the claimant also?

[des8]

IMO not necessary, but did you remember to serve a copy on claimant?

[ecalid]

IMO para 4 & 16 are irrelevant to your defence and could be omitted

I think you need to show more positively that the land is owned or controlled by the local council.
Use of terms such as "appears" and "likely" leave lots of room for argument.
Have you checked Land Registry for ownership details?

In para 50 I think you cite Beavis so need to include the year (could also add the neutral citation and indicate the judgment paragraphs you are relying on)
I would add that the additional charges are unlawful as they smack of double indemnity

Good luck

Thanks des8

I've changed things slightly just to reflect your points.

I've sent it over by email to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk, with the subject [Claim Number] - Defence, and I've received my confirmation email.

Do you think its worth sending over a paper copy recorded delivery also?

[des8]

IMO para 4 & 16 are irrelevant to your defence and could be omitted

I think you need to show more positively that the land is owned or controlled by the local council.
Use of terms such as "appears" and "likely" leave lots of room for argument.
Have you checked Land Registry for ownership details?

In para 50 I think you cite Beavis so need to include the year (could also add the neutral citation and indicate the judgment paragraphs you are relying on)
I would add that the additional charges are unlawful as they smack of double indemnity

Good luck

[ecalid]

Good afternoon,

Just a heads up that the defence is due in on Friday, but I intend to put it in on Thursday just to make sure it gets in.

Claim Number:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

BETWEEN


Civil Enforcement Ltd

Claimant

V



XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Defendant



__________________________________________________


Defence

__________________________________________________

1. On or around XXXXXXXX the Defendant received a county court claim from the Claimant indicating their intention to recover sums relating to a Parking Charge virtue of a breach of Contract terms/Conditions.
   -
2. This claim appears to have been issued against the Defendant in connection with the Defendant’s refusal to pay a private parking charge which the Claimant alleges that the Defendant is liable to pay, either as the driver of the vehicle or as the registered keeper. For the reasons set out in this defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.
   -
3. Each and every allegation made by the Claimant is denied unless stated explicitly otherwise.
   -
4. The Defendant respectfully submits that he is a litigant in person and some of his defence is formed from information gathered from online sources and he cannot guarantee that these were up-to-date when the alleged contravention took place, notwithstanding, the Claimant is put to strict proof to declare all evidence upon which their claim relies.
   -
5. The Defendant intends to respond to the issues raised by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim; however, he cannot do so with complete accuracy because the Claimant has not pleaded its case in accordance with the civil procedure rules, namely CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction 16 para 7.5 (PD 16)
   -
6. It is the Defendant's respectful submission that the conduct upon which the Claimant relies is - according to the claimants POC - “Drivers may only park pursuant to TCs of use displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/parking”.
   -
7. The sign upon entry to the car park does not consist of any agreeable terms, in fact it reads "See car park signs for terms and conditions".
   -
8. The Defendant submits that the conduct element upon which the Claimant relies appears to be with regards to parking a vehicle on private land and breach of alleged terms of that land.
   -
9. Contrary to CPR 16.4(1)(e) and PD 16 para 7.5 respectively, the Claimant has failed to declare the conduct, amounting to breach of the alleged terms, on which the Claimant relies and has failed to particularise the basis of the allegation made against the registered keeper pursuant to the practice direction; the Claimant has failed to identify by whom the breach was undertaken.
   -
10. The defendant is therefore confused by the vagueness of the particulars considering that the claim was issued by the head of the Claimant’s legal team. The lack of compliance with the CPR to issue proper particulars cannot be excused, particularly as the Claimant’s head of legal team appears to have invoked the Chorley principle to claim expenses for exercising his legal expertise.
    -
11. The Defendant has been unable to identify the Claimants legal representative on the Solicitors Regulators Authority register as the Claimant’s legal representative has not contacted the Defendant prior to issuing the claim, which would otherwise allow him the opportunity to determine their credentials. This has not afforded the Defendant to an opportunity to identify whether the representative is qualified to conduct legal advocacy for the Claimant or 3rd party to the Claimant and in either way therefore eligible for the additional costs.
    -
12. The Defendant therefore respectfully forwards the Claimant’s attention to the draconian consequences imposed by the court on Claimants who provide false information when filing their claims.
    -
13. The Claimant therefore has filed a claim which must be contrary to the Claimant’s statement of truth and therefore not compliant with Practice Direction 22 para 2.1.
    -
14. Attention is therefore drawn for the Claimant to CPR 3.4(2)c which provides the consequences imposed on Claimants who breach the civil procedure rules. The court is respectfully invited to exercise its powers to strike out the claim.
    -
15. By way of the relevant facts, the Defendant acknowledges that his details are on the V5 form as a registered keeper. However, the V5 also indicates that the V5 is not proof of ownership. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.
    -
16. The Defendant recently moved into an area near the car park, so he and any of his associates are not accustomed to the various pitfalls of alleged private parking in the area.
    -
17. The Defendant contends that the signage upon entering the car park is not sufficient to enable a driver to enter into contract with the Claimant.
    -
18. The car park in which the claim relies is attached to XXXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXX. This is a road which is perpendicular to XXXXXXX Road. Both roads run alongside the car park.
    -
19. When approaching the car park from XXXXXXX Street, it is a one-way street with no access from XXXXXXX Road.
    -
20. The sign which indicates that the car park is private land is facing all oncoming traffic from XXXXXXX Road only and does not at all offer any guidance to the terms of, or specification of private land from any driver approaching from XXXXXXXXX Street.
    -
21. Additionally, the signs in the car park which have the terms written upon them are positioned over the left half of the car park and are not clearly visible when entering the car park.
    -
22. The Defendant contends that if a driver was to arrive at the car park from XXXXXXX Street and then positioned their vehicle on the right hand side of the car park, for example to decrease the walking distance between himself and a shop on XXXXXXXXX Road, the signs would not have been visible enough for the driver to enter into the agreement upon which the Claimant relies.
    -
23. If it is found that the signage was adequate, then the Defendant will say that it is denied that the Claimant has the relevant authority to conduct car parking enforcement on the car park in question as the car park appears to be subject to ownership by the local council.
    -
24. The Claimant appears to manage the private car park on behalf of the land owner and collects debts for breach of the TCs.
    -
25. The Defendant is unable to determine the legitimacy of the claim to successfully plead his defence and has therefore issued a request pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 and has asked the Claimant to provide copies of the contract with the land owner upon which they rely. The Claimant has not responded at all, notwithstanding having received the request as per the proof of postage.
    -
26. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 “POFA 2012” Schedule 4, 3(1)(b) & (c) provides that ‘a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority’ and ‘relevant land means any land which is not subject to statutory control respectively’ is unable to be lawfully imparted as private land for the use of parking enforcement activities.
    -
27. POFA 2012 Schedule 4, 3(3) provides: “For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.”
    -
28. Attention is drawn for the claimant to the Department of Transport Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges, Section 4.1. “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.”
    -
29. It is the Defendant’s respectful submission that according to online maps of the car park, one of the signs which is centered within the car park, reads: “Market. Thurs & Fri. Car Park Closed 8.00am – 4.00pm”; this appears to contradict the alleged terms of the Claimant’s car park which provide that the car park is operational 24 hours a day.
    -
30. It is the Defendant’s respectful submission that the car park is likely under control of the local council and it is the council who issue PCN’s to drivers who park when the car park is closed. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof to demonstrate the Claimant’s ability to enforce parking terms on the specified land.
    -
31. The Claimant has refused to disclose this information notwithstanding referring to this relationship in their Particulars of Claim (POC).
    -
32. The Claimant has therefore breached their responsibilities under CPR 31.14 and they are put to strict proof to demonstrate they can lawfully collect this alleged debt on behalf of the land owner pursuant to Schedule 4, s5(1)a PoFA 2012.
    -
33. In the absence of such evidence, the Defendant respectfully asks that the court makes an inference that the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant for alleged monies owed and strike out their claim.
    -
34. The Defendant respectfully submits that if, (which is denied) it is found that reasonable notice was given, he will contend that the signage upon which the Claimant relies is contrary to s62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 “CRA 2015” which provides that a term is unfair if it is contrary to the requirement of good faith as it causes a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer.
    -
35. Attention is therefore drawn for the Claimant to s71(2) CRA 2015 which indicates the courts obligation to consider unfair terms in contracts.
    -
36. In the Claimants signage, above the sub header “Terms and Conditions” it reads: “IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU MAY BE LIABLE TO A PARKING CHARGE OF UP TO £100.”
    -
37. In the Claimants signage, preceding the statement in para 36, it reads: “Payment must be made within 15 minutes of arrival on the premises”
    -
38. The Defendant contends that the alleged term in para 37 does not inform the driver to pay upon parking on the premises, in fact, in its literal sense, it demands payments upon entry to the premises only.
    -
39. The definition of ‘arrival’ according to the Claimant’s terms indicates the knowledge that the driver will enter and remain on the premises. However, the claimant cannot rely on an implied conduct as the Claimant cannot know the future.
    -
40. Attention is drawn towards the particulars of claim which indicate the Claimant’s own distinction between entry and parking within the car park: "Drivers may only park pursuant to TCs of use displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/parking.”
    -
41. The Defendant respectfully forwards attention to para 7, which highlights that there are no agreeable terms at the entry point of the car park so therefore all terms can only be agreed upon parking.
    -
42. Attention is drawn to s13.1 of the British Parking Association code of practice indicates that all car parking enforcement companies under this association must provide a consideration period which exceeds at least 5 minutes to allow the driver the ability to consider and accept the terms provided or leave the car park free of charge.
    -
43. The Defendant therefore will content that the term in para 37 is an unfair term contraire to para 5 of Schedule 2 CRA 2015 and the Claimant cannot realistically have intended to enter into legal relations with the driver.
    -
44. The Defendant contends that the term is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to s62 CRA 2015 and respectfully invites the court to exercise its powers and nullify the term or strike out the claim.
    -
45. If it is found that the term in para 37 is correct then the Defendant will contend that the statement in para 36 therefore renders the term in para 46 to within the scope of the conduct required by the Practice Direction 16 para 7.5.
    -
46. In the Claimants signage, proceeding the statement in para 36 it reads: “Additional costs/recovery charges will be incurred if payment is not received within 28 days”
    -
47. It is the Defendants interpretation that the terms indicate that, without a permit, additional costs/recovery charges will be issued for lack of payment for parking within the car park which is due for up to a maximum time of 28 days lapsed. The terms under the title ‘Terms and conditions’ make no reference to any parking charge, but the Defendant contends that the statement in para 36, has downward causation to the terms titled “Terms and Conditions”
    -
48. The Defendant therefore contends that the Claimant cannot rely upon the alleged term in para 47 to add additional charges or recovery charges which their claim relies, as s68 of the CRA 2015 provides that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language. The Defendant contends that the terms in the Claimants signage are neither transparent nor intelligible as the terms seem to either contradict each other or are not easily interpreted and should be construed against the draftsman.
    -
49. If it is found that the term in para 46 is correct, then the Defendant will contend that the Claimant is attempting to perform a double recovery on the alleged debt.
    -
50. The Defendant respectfully forwards the Claimant’s attention to the case of Parking Eye v Beavis; it was determined in this ruling that the charge in which the Claimant is attempting to recover, is a cost sanctioned by the supreme court as reasonable costs to cover the recovery. It was also decided that a global sum of £160 would be considered as a penalty and not a pre-estimate of loss.
    -
51. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant has added an unlawful extra amount of £70 payable to the Claimant.
    -
52. It is therefore denied that the Claimant is entitled to relief of the sum claimed as the additional charges/recovery charges are contraire to s67 CRA 2015 and Schedule 2 CRA 2015.
    -
53. It is the Defendants respectful submission that the Claimant’s claim should be struck out as the Claimant has exhibited a blatant abuse of process by attempting to claim for additional fees for which the Claimant is not entitled.
    -
54. By reason of the multiple failures exhibited by the Claimant in issuing the claim, notwithstanding all errors in pursuit of the claim against the registered keeper, it is the Defendants respectful submission that the Claimant has brought a claim for which he is not entitled to recover any alleged parking charge and no reasonable prospect of success and should be struck out.

Any advice you can provide would be helpful.

[des8]

Welcome Shawn JimmyC1573

The best thing to do is start your own thread, posting up if poss a copy of the demand letter and any other documents your mother might have.
Piggy backing on someone else's thread only causes confusion

[JimmyC1573]

Hi - been reading the forums and have come into a bit of an issue.

My 85 year old mother received a notice of debt recovery from DCBL the other day for two PCNs from 2021. She has never received any previous correspondence on this matter so it came as somewhat of a shock to her. Total debt is £340.

What would be the best option? She is worried sick bless her (and currently undergoing treatment for cancer so not in the best health). I would like to put her mind at ease if I can.

Best wishes

Shawn

[ecalid]

You still have a week (I think) before your defence is due in, and you are still awaiting a response to your CPR 31.14 request, so not commenting in depth yet.

Have noted you refer to yourself as "respondent", although "Defendant" is normally used as the opposing party to a "claimant", in a civil cause of action (as in CPR). Is this the latest trend?

You state " the car park appears to be subject to local byelaws upheld by the local council."
1) you appear uncertain about this
2) how does this fit with PoFA 2012 definition of what is not relevant land?
PoFA definition: (a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

Hi des8

Thanks for your reply. As always, any advice you can provide is extemely helpful for me.

Respondent I believe is homogenous with Defendant but lacks the adverserial tone, it's just one I've always used to distinguish between Defendant in criminal cases. I know particularly in employment cases that there is a Respondent as it refers to a singular entity.

The byelaw arguement is more of a rabbithole to add extra clout to the CPR request, which might hopefully make them discontinue as opposed to risk being forced tk release business sensitive information into the public domain.

The sign which reads Car Park closed is contraire to the claimants alleged terms of being in operation 24 hours a day which might cause a reasonable judge to force the disclosure. Also the burden is on the claimant to prove they owe the debt.

The PoFA definition is a presumption, and one that a ligitant in person might be forgiven for raising. You've rightly pointed out that it's a weak arguement but it is the first line of attack out of three. But generally if land is council owned and it is signposted as being shut between X and X, I suppose they would likely issue PCN's, as per para 6 of the above.

[des8]

You still have a week (I think) before your defence is due in, and you are still awaiting a response to your CPR 31.14 request, so not commenting in depth yet.

Have noted you refer to yourself as "respondent", although "Defendant" is normally used as the opposing party to a "claimant", in a civil cause of action (as in CPR). Is this the latest trend?

You state " the car park appears to be subject to local byelaws upheld by the local council."
1) you appear uncertain about this
2) how does this fit with PoFA 2012 definition of what is not relevant land?
PoFA definition: (a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.