Help please!!! Civil enforcement ltd

[salviemia23]

Hello all
I am new to this forum and need some help please.
I have received 2 county court letters both for the same day for the amount of £351 each. I have followed the advice on here and now have acknowledged the letters.
I can not remember where the parking fines are even from as it was in 2015.
I have not received the particulars yet and the issue date on the letter was 03/10/17 so now that is 14 days.
Im not sure what to do next as i am not great with this type of thing
Any help would be hugely appreciated.

Many Thanks

[Kati]

Re: Help please!!! Civil enforcement ltd

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] ... one for you xx

[ostell]

Re: Help please!!! Civil enforcement ltd

Go onto the Pepipoo site And look for CEL defences and modify to suit your circumstances, as much as you can, and post on here. It has been commented that with half term coming up and people away CEL are hoping to get a few defaults for lack of response.

Are these 2 charges for the same event or same place?

[salviemia23]

Re: Help please!!! Civil enforcement ltd

Go onto the Pepipoo site And look for CEL defences and modify to suit your circumstances, as much as you can, and post on here. It has been commented that with half term coming up and people away CEL are hoping to get a few defaults for lack of response.

Are these 2 charges for the same event or same place?

Ok will do,
yes I think so, I have no details on where it actually was,.?

Thank you

[ostell]

Re: Help please!!! Civil enforcement ltd

So you have none of the original documentation, such as the Notice to Keeper? Looks like rubbish particulars of claim again.

[salviemia23]

Re: Help please!!! Civil enforcement ltd

No I have nothing at all.
Particulars have still not come so I don"t even know where this occurred. All i have is 2 letters with different claim numbers and both say amount due £351

[salviemia23]

Re: Help please!!! Civil enforcement ltd

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited v ___

Defence Statement

I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

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 (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And 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 is naturally a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant. The Beavis case confirmed the fact 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 damages.

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 or 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. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

f) 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

g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

3. The Beavis case confirmed the fact 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 damages.
4. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement 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.

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.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. Neither the signs, nor the Notice to Keeper, nor the permit information highlighted a possible £350 for outstanding debt and damages as illustrated on the claim form.

6. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

7. This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) 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 (CoP) was paramount and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

8. 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) The Claimant is put to 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) 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) Nonexistent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(iii) It is believed the signage 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 huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(iv) 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.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, 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 or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

9. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

10. 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:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on….

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

The Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge.

Would this defence be ok?

[salviemia23]

Re: Help please!!! Civil enforcement ltd

Hi

I have now just received 1 of my Particulars which was suppose to be within 14 days but is 22 days later.
So it was for parking in a car with a parade of shops.
I sent the defence so now waiting to hear next steps,
Can anyone give me any more info please in what i should do next, I can not believe they can fine you for that type of car park when i was probably in the cafe having something to eat then went to the bookies which is all at the same place.
Any more advice please
Many Thanks

[charitynjw]

Re: Help please!!! Civil enforcement ltd

Check with the court to see if & when they have filed an N215 Certificate of Service.
Should be filed within 7 days of service of particulars when they are served separately.

Also send an email to the court stating that you have only received the Claimant's Particulars of Claim on (date) and so have been seriously disadvantaged due to tardy service of same, as you were required to submit a defence without sight of the detailed Particulars.

Put 'Civil Enforcement Ltd v (you) Court Claim No (XXXXXXXX) - Defence' in email subject box.
ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

And keep the envelope which contained the recent detailed PoC as proof.

[salviemia23]

Re: Help please!!! Civil enforcement ltd

Thank You will get that done