Tweet
I'm new to this site but I'm hoping for some advice. I received a county court letter from Northampton business centre from CEL dated the 9th October 2017 for the sum of £357.76 relating to an alleged offence in April 2015, that is the only details they have included, a date and time. I have no recollection of this day, let alone who was driving. The claim form was relating to a car I no longer own, addressed in my maiden name and sent to my previous address, I only got it because my tenant gave it to me, fortunately! All I have done at this stage is acknowledged the claim which I did on the 19th October. I received a POC, again to my previous address, from CEL again all limited details. I received the POC on the 26th October but its actually dated the 11th October which leads me to believe they've back dated it to suit( common practice it seems) I have contacted the court to inform them of the date I ACTUALLY received it. I want to get my defence done and sent now but After reading what feels like hundreds of threads I've got a headache with it all, so I've put together a defence. Id appreciate some thoughts on it please.
Just a few points, should I add the detail about backed dated POC and where? or complete a witness statement and send with my defence
I've also contacted CEL asking for more details including a copy of the certificate of service, heard nothing.
I've also had no correspondence from CEL, the first knowledge I had of this was the county claim form.
In the County Court Business centre
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited V xxxxxxxxxxx
Claim Number: xxxx
I am xxxx, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper ofvehicle xxxx. I currently reside at xxxx.
I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the followingreasons:
1. The Claim Form issued on the 9th October 2017 by Civil Enforcement Ltd wasnot correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by alegal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited” (Claimant’s LegalRepresentative)”.
2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in thenew Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as towhy this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge canbe for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these aretreated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of anycontract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of thealleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
a. There was no complaint “Letter before County Court Claim”, under thePractice Direction
b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of “draftparticulars”. 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 ofaction 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 beconsidered a fair exchange of information. Furthermore, the Claim FormParticulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. Thesedocuments, and the “Letter before County Court Claim” should have beenproduced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre ActionConduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defendthe claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the PracticeDirection. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the newPre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
i. “Early engagement and communication between the parties, including earlyexchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whetherthere are any issues in dispute
ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start courtproceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or consideringusing an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner inall dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which donot bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided”.
e. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosingno cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currentlydrafted
f. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to fileParticulars with Practice Directions and include at least the followinginformation:
i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or acontractual 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 signagemaps in place at the time)
iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Noticeto Driver / Notice to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a listof documents they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basison which this is being claimed
vii. If interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is beingclaimed.
g. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for a reasonabletime to file another defence.
3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, thisClaimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict “keeper liability”provisions.
a. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (ifSchedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a“relevant obligation” and “relevant contract”, fairly and adequatelycommunicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper.
4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. Itis believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and theparticulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50“legal representative’s costs were incurred.
5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (theBeavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusuallyprominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique factsregarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliancewith the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driverwho saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding alicence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vagueparticulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and withouthaving been furnished with the alleged signage “contract”, none of this appliesin this material case.
6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound theDefendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case
a. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event theyhad both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner todisplay the signs
b. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing anoffence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have beenentered into between the driver and the Claimant
c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver – this distinguishes thiscase from the Beavis case:
i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) ofsite/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code ofPractice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum
ii. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparentor legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contraryto 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 considerationbecause there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from theClaimant
iv. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additionalcharge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
d. BPA CoP breaches – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting orpositioning
ii. The sum pursued exceeds £100
iii. There is/was no compliant landowner contract
7. No standing – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
a. It is believed Civil Enforcement Ltd do not hold a legitimate contract atthis car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such aclaim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.
8. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (notbreach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner topursue even nominal damages.
9. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercialjustification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainlyengaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due tothe unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.
10. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection ofthe day in question. It would not be reasonable expect a registered keeper tobe able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car nearly 2 years later. Inany case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in thePOPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator,Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that a registered keeper can onlybe held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any otherlegal argument.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter andasks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
• Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Formissued on 9th October 2017.
• Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste “Particulars” ofclaim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that thisClaimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choiceof non-POFA documentation.
The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court isinvited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and noreasonable prospects of success.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of myknowledge and recollection.
o
Just a few points, should I add the detail about backed dated POC and where? or complete a witness statement and send with my defence
I've also contacted CEL asking for more details including a copy of the certificate of service, heard nothing.
I've also had no correspondence from CEL, the first knowledge I had of this was the county claim form.
In the County Court Business centre
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited V xxxxxxxxxxx
Claim Number: xxxx
I am xxxx, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper ofvehicle xxxx. I currently reside at xxxx.
I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the followingreasons:
1. The Claim Form issued on the 9th October 2017 by Civil Enforcement Ltd wasnot correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by alegal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited” (Claimant’s LegalRepresentative)”.
2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in thenew Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as towhy this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge canbe for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these aretreated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of anycontract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of thealleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
a. There was no complaint “Letter before County Court Claim”, under thePractice Direction
b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of “draftparticulars”. 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 ofaction 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 beconsidered a fair exchange of information. Furthermore, the Claim FormParticulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. Thesedocuments, and the “Letter before County Court Claim” should have beenproduced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre ActionConduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defendthe claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the PracticeDirection. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the newPre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
i. “Early engagement and communication between the parties, including earlyexchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whetherthere are any issues in dispute
ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start courtproceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or consideringusing an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner inall dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which donot bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided”.
e. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosingno cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currentlydrafted
f. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to fileParticulars with Practice Directions and include at least the followinginformation:
i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or acontractual 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 signagemaps in place at the time)
iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Noticeto Driver / Notice to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a listof documents they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basison which this is being claimed
vii. If interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is beingclaimed.
g. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for a reasonabletime to file another defence.
3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, thisClaimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict “keeper liability”provisions.
a. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (ifSchedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a“relevant obligation” and “relevant contract”, fairly and adequatelycommunicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper.
4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. Itis believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and theparticulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50“legal representative’s costs were incurred.
5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (theBeavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusuallyprominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique factsregarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliancewith the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driverwho saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding alicence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vagueparticulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and withouthaving been furnished with the alleged signage “contract”, none of this appliesin this material case.
6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound theDefendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case
a. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event theyhad both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner todisplay the signs
b. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing anoffence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have beenentered into between the driver and the Claimant
c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver – this distinguishes thiscase from the Beavis case:
i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) ofsite/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code ofPractice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum
ii. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparentor legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contraryto 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 considerationbecause there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from theClaimant
iv. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additionalcharge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
d. BPA CoP breaches – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting orpositioning
ii. The sum pursued exceeds £100
iii. There is/was no compliant landowner contract
7. No standing – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
a. It is believed Civil Enforcement Ltd do not hold a legitimate contract atthis car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such aclaim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.
8. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (notbreach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner topursue even nominal damages.
9. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercialjustification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainlyengaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due tothe unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.
10. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection ofthe day in question. It would not be reasonable expect a registered keeper tobe able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car nearly 2 years later. Inany case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in thePOPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator,Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that a registered keeper can onlybe held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any otherlegal argument.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter andasks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
• Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Formissued on 9th October 2017.
• Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste “Particulars” ofclaim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that thisClaimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choiceof non-POFA documentation.
The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court isinvited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and noreasonable prospects of success.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of myknowledge and recollection.
oGlad you like it!
o
oMulti-Quote Added
oAdded to Spam
oAdded to Spam
Comment