Civil Enforcement Ltd & DCBL

[des8]

Apologies for a delay in responding, but had my own set of problems with a neighbour.

You can argue the signs were not sufficiently clear to form a contract, and a major problem they have is with unspecified additional costs
You will find this link interesting and hopefully useful!

[ecalid]

Apologies for a delay in responding, but had my own set of problems with a neighbour.

You can argue the signs were not sufficiently clear to form a contract, and a major problem they have is with unspecified additional costs
You will find this link interesting and hopefully useful!

Thanks Des. Well I hope your neighbor knows who they're up against!

I think with the additional costs arguement, you are refering to the excel v wilkinson judgment? And the consumer rights act 2015 abuse of process arguement?

They had the claim struck out virtue of abuse of process by the claimant for unspecified costs.

Sorry but I couldn't see a link.

Ideally yesa judge would identify the signs were certainly not sufficient enough to form a contract, as a secondary arguement I would have liked to argue the structure of the terms possibly indicate that there are two contracts within the signage, and one destroys the other, also changing the sum specified and time for serving correspondence, rendering their correspondence unenforcable.

[des8]

Yes, you that's the case I referred to. Sorry, my link seems not to work, but you can access the case judgment via MSE
(https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com...20into%20doubt.)

If the signs are confusing, I don't think they necessarily cancel each other out
It may be better to argue that they should be construed in favour of the defendant (contra proferentem)

[ecalid]

Good morning all.

Looks like they want to dance, so today I received the claim form.

For clarity, the POC are:

Claim for money relating to a Parking Charge for breach of contract terms/conditions(TCs) for parking in private car park (CP) managed by claimant. Drivers may only park pursuant to TCs of use displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/parking. ANPR cameras or manual patrols monitor vehicles entering/exiting the CP and TC breaches. Charges of GBP170.00 claimed.
Violation date: 23/04/2023
Payment due date: 22/05/2023
Time In: 10:30 Time out: 10:48
PCN: **********************
Vehicle reg mark: ********* Car Park:-The hollies

Total due- GBP170.00
Pay: www.ce-service.co.uk or 01158225020
The claimant claims the sum of GBP184.27
for unpaid parking charge inc GBP14.27
Interest under S.69 of the CCA 1984
Rate: 8.00% pa from due date to- 10/05/2024
Same rate to Judgement or sooner payment
at daily rate of- GBP0.04
Total debt and interest due- GBP184.27



From what I'm led to believe, using the online service to acknowledge claims is no longer the best option.

[ecalid]

ULA could I get this moved into the court claims catagory please?

[ULA]

Hi ecalid I appreciate that this has become a claim but it is fine to leave it in this forum area particularly as you are getting advice and support from des8 on this.

[ecalid]

Hi ecalid I appreciate that this has become a claim but it is fine to leave it in this forum area particularly as you are getting advice and support from des8 on this.

Thanks Ula for clearing that up.

[des8]

[QUOTE=
From what I'm led to believe, using the online service to acknowledge claims is no longer the best option.
[/QUOTE]

From where did that info come?

I still suggest immediate acknowledgement without entering a defence.
The defence can then be sorted out at leisure over the next 30 odd days.

[ecalid]

From where did that info come?

I still suggest immediate acknowledgement without entering a defence.
The defence can then be sorted out at leisure over the next 30 odd days.

Good evening des8

I had been reading through some other stories and came across a few people preferring to reply by letter and then contacting the court. Oldschool maybe, distrust for technology perhaps.

I'll do this right away.

I'm also going to put in the CPR request and ask for alleged terms/contract and maybe owners contract and see what comes back.

I might need some help building a defence as it has been a while since my last claim. I hope you don't mind?

I would like to address the inconsistencies in the terms perhaps as a secondary defence to the poor signage argument, what do you guys think? Crucially the driver just simply didn't see the woefully inadequate signage to start with. The charges look to be in order so I don't think I'll get away with the consumer credit act argument?

Many thanks.

[des8]

The parking companies do read this site so suggest you amend your last post so the driver cannot be identified

Quite happy to help with defence preparation.
Post up if response to CPR received, or if no response post a nudge prior to a week of due date for defence

[ecalid]

The parking companies do read this site so suggest you amend your last post so the driver cannot be identified

Quite happy to help with defence preparation.
Post up if response to CPR received, or if no response post a nudge prior to a week of due date for defence

Thanks des8

It won't let me edit my post now :/

[des8]

Will ask admin ( ULA or EXC please) to amend phrase in final para of post 54 to read " ......Crucially the diver just simply didn't see......"

[EXC]

Done.

[ecalid]

des8 EXC thank you.

[ecalid]

Good afternoon,

I have today been reading a judgement which I downloaded from Scribd.

Civil Enforcement Ltd v Ming Tak Chan [2023]

The gist of the judgement is that the claimant did not comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 17 para.7.5 by way of failing to include by how the alleged breach had occurred by the respondent. The appellants had applied to strike out the claim on the grounds that there was no reasonable chance of success. Also this was an appeal judgement to be set aside as the respondent did not reply to the claim form, however it was still struck out on the basis that the previous judge had erred in not identifying the CPR failures.

The POC for the respondent in this claim were:

Claim for monies relating to a parking charge for parking in a private car park managed by the claimant in breach of the terms and conditions (T&Cs). Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T&Cs of use. ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering and exiting the site. Debt + damages claimed sum of £236. Violation date: 06.01.2017. Time in: 15:14. Time out: 20:04.

To give context to this, please see below:

9. On behalf of the appellant though, it is argued that the information set out is not sufficient to set out the conduct relied upon as amounting to a breach of contract. Mr Yamba argues that there are a number of ways in which one might breach the terms and conditions. This is not set out in the brief claim form. By way of example, he said, there may be a failure to buy a parking ticket at all. There may be a failure to park properly in a bay. By way of further example, he said, a person might use a space allocated for use by drivers with disabilities. Alternatively, he submits, it may be a case of overstaying whereby a ticket bought for a certain period of time and the defendant stays longer than he or she has paid for.

10. I am persuaded by these arguments. It is incumbent upon the claimant (the respondent before me) to set out how it is that the entitlement to the charge arises. It is correct that this claim form sets out that there was a contract. One can safely infer that it is as a result of the driver bringing the car onto the land that it is being said by conduct a contract arose. It is also clear which vehicle is said to have been used in a manner which breached the contract. It is also clear where and when the breach is said to have occurred. The breach itself however is not set out. The conduct giving rise to the breach is not set out.

11. This is, I think as Mr Yamba accepts, a technical point, but nonetheless the rules are clear. The particulars of claim must set out that conduct and, in my view, Mr Yamba has shown that the particulars of claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract.

The claimant attempted to argue that the requisite details were sent by way of the letter before action, however the Judge did not agree this could be substituted for the POC.

I have the full judgement should you need it.

I'm thinking that I could include this into my defence and then I'd probably wait to see if they respond, if they don't acknowledge it or claim gets stayed I might as well throw in the application to strike it out as the Judge might be less inclined to offer them the opportunity to change the POC to lift the stay.



Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!