Tweet
In the middle of last year I (as the registered keeper) received a letter from Civil Enforcement Ltd for parking in a KFC car park at 10 AM in the morning for 16 minutes. The PCN issue date was dated exactly one month after the 'offence date'.
I emailed CEL within 28 days of receipt of the letter with the following (minus my personal details)...
I am challenging this parking notice. When the driver arrived at 10 AM, they had assumed the store followed normal retail practice regarding Sunday trading and would be opening at this time. As soon as it became clear that there would be an unacceptable delay, the driver left. The sign is not clear which applies - the availability of free parking or its restriction to 90 minutes. Nor is there any indication of what the store opening hours are. I note that you are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue me for payment as the registered keeper. I request that the parking notice is cancelled. Thank You and regards.
A letter from CEL confirming receipt of my email followed. They requested that I provide them with the details of the driver on the day the PCN was issued. I ignored this request.
A string of letters followed that; a PCN reminder, a letter before action, two ZZPS letters, two Wright Hassall letters, and now a County Court letter and a particulars of claim letter. The County Court letter is dated 07/04/17.
I have acknowledged receipt and drafted the following...
In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number ****
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v **** ****
Defence Statement
I am **** ****, the Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle ****. I currently reside at ****.
The claim is denied on the following grounds, any of which are fatal to the Claimant’s case.
1) The Claim Form issued on the **** 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’.
2) The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court claim’.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical ‘draft particulars’. The poorly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention, nor photographs.
(c) The Claim Form particulars are extremely sparse and divulge 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.
3) There was no claim or debt on the due date stated in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant had not issued any documents on or before the due date, making it impossible for the Defendant to owe, or indeed pay money by the due date. No debt could legally be due until at least eight weeks after the date stated.
4) It is believed that Civil Enforcement Limited 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. This distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
5) I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a complaint notice under 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, the Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions. Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that, “however keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort”.
6) Inadequate signage incapable of binding the driver – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
(a) Sporadic and illegible site/entrance signage – the charge lettering is not large or prominent. This is a breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) Non-existent ANPR ‘data use’ signage which is a breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(c) It is believed the signage was not lit 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 hugely inflated sum as ‘compensation’.
(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute because there was no offer known, nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
7) The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. I challenge the total claimed amount of £326.41. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest or indeed any claim whatsoever. I believe with good cause that the documents prepared are merely templates that have not complied with protocol and therefore the amounts claimed are unjustified and false.
(a) I put the Claimant to proof that it issued a claim for £140.00 after sending the Letter Before Action. It is my belief that the Claimant passed the account to a debt collector (ZZPS) for no purpose except to inflate the amount.
(b) As Wright Hassall were engaged by ZZPS, not by Civil Enforcement Limited, the fee of £30.00 plus VAT is non recoverable.
(c) I put the Claimant to proof that it paid ZZPS the £60.00 added to the alleged debt.
(d) I put the Claimant to proof that the additional £50.00 Legal Representative fee on the Claim Form has indeed been paid to a Legal Representative of Civil Enforcement Limited. The form is unsigned giving me reason to believe that the Legal Representative’s fee is false.
8) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) 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 was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85.00 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
(a) The Beavis case confirmed 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 charges.
(b) There 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 case.
(c) The case breaches the BPA Code of Practice in that the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning, the sum pursued exceeds £100.00, and there is/was no compliant landowner contract.
The court is invited to strike out the claim for failure to include a valid Statement of Truth, disclosure of cause of action, or order particulars that comply with Practice Directions; as such the claim has no merit and no reasonable prospect of success.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
Signed
Date
Is this good to go?
What is the best way to submit it?
Thank you in advance for any help
I emailed CEL within 28 days of receipt of the letter with the following (minus my personal details)...
I am challenging this parking notice. When the driver arrived at 10 AM, they had assumed the store followed normal retail practice regarding Sunday trading and would be opening at this time. As soon as it became clear that there would be an unacceptable delay, the driver left. The sign is not clear which applies - the availability of free parking or its restriction to 90 minutes. Nor is there any indication of what the store opening hours are. I note that you are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue me for payment as the registered keeper. I request that the parking notice is cancelled. Thank You and regards.
A letter from CEL confirming receipt of my email followed. They requested that I provide them with the details of the driver on the day the PCN was issued. I ignored this request.
A string of letters followed that; a PCN reminder, a letter before action, two ZZPS letters, two Wright Hassall letters, and now a County Court letter and a particulars of claim letter. The County Court letter is dated 07/04/17.
I have acknowledged receipt and drafted the following...
In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number ****
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v **** ****
Defence Statement
I am **** ****, the Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle ****. I currently reside at ****.
The claim is denied on the following grounds, any of which are fatal to the Claimant’s case.
1) The Claim Form issued on the **** 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’.
2) The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court claim’.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical ‘draft particulars’. The poorly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention, nor photographs.
(c) The Claim Form particulars are extremely sparse and divulge 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.
3) There was no claim or debt on the due date stated in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant had not issued any documents on or before the due date, making it impossible for the Defendant to owe, or indeed pay money by the due date. No debt could legally be due until at least eight weeks after the date stated.
4) It is believed that Civil Enforcement Limited 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. This distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
5) I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a complaint notice under 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, the Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions. Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that, “however keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort”.
6) Inadequate signage incapable of binding the driver – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
(a) Sporadic and illegible site/entrance signage – the charge lettering is not large or prominent. This is a breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) Non-existent ANPR ‘data use’ signage which is a breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(c) It is believed the signage was not lit 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 hugely inflated sum as ‘compensation’.
(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute because there was no offer known, nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
7) The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. I challenge the total claimed amount of £326.41. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest or indeed any claim whatsoever. I believe with good cause that the documents prepared are merely templates that have not complied with protocol and therefore the amounts claimed are unjustified and false.
(a) I put the Claimant to proof that it issued a claim for £140.00 after sending the Letter Before Action. It is my belief that the Claimant passed the account to a debt collector (ZZPS) for no purpose except to inflate the amount.
(b) As Wright Hassall were engaged by ZZPS, not by Civil Enforcement Limited, the fee of £30.00 plus VAT is non recoverable.
(c) I put the Claimant to proof that it paid ZZPS the £60.00 added to the alleged debt.
(d) I put the Claimant to proof that the additional £50.00 Legal Representative fee on the Claim Form has indeed been paid to a Legal Representative of Civil Enforcement Limited. The form is unsigned giving me reason to believe that the Legal Representative’s fee is false.
8) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) 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 was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85.00 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
(a) The Beavis case confirmed 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 charges.
(b) There 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 case.
(c) The case breaches the BPA Code of Practice in that the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning, the sum pursued exceeds £100.00, and there is/was no compliant landowner contract.
The court is invited to strike out the claim for failure to include a valid Statement of Truth, disclosure of cause of action, or order particulars that comply with Practice Directions; as such the claim has no merit and no reasonable prospect of success.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
Signed
Date
Is this good to go?
What is the best way to submit it?
Thank you in advance for any help
