Civil Enforcement Ltd County Court Business Centre Claim

[charitynjw]

I am thinking about counter claiming but not sure as to the process for that yet.
You add it to the bottom of your defence (which would now be headed 'Defence and counterclaim'), just before the statement of truth.
So
Defence and counterclaim

(Main body of Defence)

Counterclaim

(Specify counterclaim)

Statement of truth

& pay a £25.00 fee to the court.


Also, what is the defence of impossibility you are referring to?
'Impossibility' is a defence in contract law meaning exactly that; a contract is not possible because [ABC].
In your case it is because of reasons stated in your (above) defence.
Just give them another brief mention (ie ...namely [XYZ])
Thanks for mentioning x

Although it is referred to as a counterclaim, think of it as an entirely new claim.
So if the Claimant were to discontinue their own claim, your counterclaim would surive that & would still be a live claim, to which the other party must file a defence (to the counterclaim), much in the same way you have had to do for their original claim.

[Lyat]

####

So if i counterclaim, will this prolong the process? Do you think it is worth counterclaiming in the long run if ideally I just want it over with asap? I would love to wipe the floor with these guys as they have put me through hell but I don't know if counterclaiming is the way to do it if it'll drag it out? If they discontinue will they repay the £25 I pay the court?

[R0b]

Its up to you whether you want to keep the references to the EqA in your defence but I'm not sure what it adds as a defence; a breach of the EqA would provide some form of compensation but even if they were in breach, the issue at hand relates to a contractual dispute and the question is whether or not you breached the terms. If anything, you could keep it in as an extra measure which might put CEL off since I presume any legal rep would have knowledge in contract and not the EqA (which is likely to cost more money and not worth pursuing).

[charitynjw]

So if i counterclaim, will this prolong the process? Do you think it is worth counterclaiming in the long run if ideally I just want it over with asap? I would love to wipe the floor with these guys as they have put me through hell but I don't know if counterclaiming is the way to do it if it'll drag it out? If they discontinue will they repay the £25 I pay the court?

Both are usually heard at the same time, & as the other party is normally given 28 days or so to consider your defence, a counterclaim (& therefore their defence to it) will not really affect timing very much if at all.
If they discontinue their claim, the counterclaim remains a 'live' claim until it is either discontinued by you, or is heard by a judge.
It can be a very powerful tool for negotiation. (Think 'coming out of your corner fighting' as opposed to just 'deflecting the blows'.)
"Float like a butterfly..........."

[Lyat]

Both are usually heard at the same time, & as the other party is normally given 28 days or so to consider your defence, a counterclaim (& therefore their defence to it) will not really affect timing very much if at all.
If they discontinue their claim, the counterclaim remains a 'live' claim until it is either discontinued by you, or is heard by a judge.
It can be a very powerful tool for negotiation. (Think 'coming out of your corner fighting' as opposed to just 'deflecting the blows'.)
"Float like a butterfly..........."

You are both right. I really want it in there to make them aware of what they have done and make it clear that they could also be losing money if they continue so how about this final draft? (Please could you clarify which date I put in for when they issued me the claim- is it the day I got it or the date on the claim form?)

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle MA03 EBJ and the claim is denied on the following grounds any of which is fatal to the claimant’s case.


1) The Claim Form issued on (do I enter the date I received the notice or the date on the form?)by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by the Claimant’s Legal Representative nor a named employee/Director, nor any legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer. The claim should, therefore, be struck out as the claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. It is therefore denied that the £50 solicitor’s fee can be claimed. Also, the full claim is denied as the claim has not been signed by either the landowner or the landowner’s solicitor.

2. The Particulars of Claim discloses no cause of action. The claimant has not provided particulars to allow the defendant to provide a reasonable defence having not stated clearly within their letters what the charge is for. 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 will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to or signed by the Defendant.

(a) The Claim form Particulars contained insufficient detail for cause of action. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention.

3. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of CPR 16. In particular it does not include a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies as it must do under CPR 16.4(1)(a) Neither are they compliant with practice direction 16 7.5.

4. The Defendant took all necessary measures to ensure that he/she complied with his/her obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions. More specifically, the defendant:

a) Made several attempts to make payment through the phone application PhoneandPay but the application crashed and returned error messages which were reported immediately.

b)Following the failed attempts through the application, a call was made to the number stated within the app however, there was no answer. A voicemail was left but the call was not returned the same day.
c) An email was sent the same evening further detailing the incident and offer to pay which was refused through a return call the following day during which the terms and offer were changed- all of which are documented and will be evidenced in court.
By reason of the matters above, it was impossible for the Defendant to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, that is to make payment. The claimant’s failure to process the payment is not the responsibility of the defendant, and no parking charge can be due. The defendant followed the directions and registered full and true vehicle and banking details via the system put in place by the company.Accordingly, the Defendant is absolved from any liability and it is further denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed in the Particulars of Claim or any relief at all.


5. Further to the claimant’s claim of breach of terms and conditions, the defendant is unaware of which terms and conditions apply given the company changed the terms the following day when changing its original offer which the defendant did not agree to. The claimant’s failure to process the payment is not the responsibility of the defendant, and no parking charge can be due. The defendant followed the directions and registered full and true vehicle and banking details via the system put in place by the company.Under UK common contract law, one of the basic requirements is for the parties to accept the offer being made. The defendant did not accept the new offer being made for the same incident which rendered any contract non-existent.

6. The Particulars of Claim state that it concerns a parking charge that was due on 20/ 06/ 2018. No charge could possibly have existed on this date. The Claimant did not issue a parking Notice on this date and as established nullified their own terms and conditions when making a counter offer that was rejected. No debt could have been outstanding on the date stated in the Particulars of Claim that are therefore untrue.

7. The claimant was made fully aware of the defendant’s medical condition and how their behaviour was causing the defendant serious medical harm by triggering the defendant’s disability. The claimant was made aware of their harassment and its direct effect on the defendant. The claimant insisted on harassing the defendant which breaches Section 1 ss.1 (a) & (b) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which states: A person must not pursue a course of conduct-
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other

8. The claimant further breaches Section 1A, ss. (c) (ii) of the same Act which states:A person must not pursue a course of conduct-

1. By which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not those mentioned above)-

(ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

9. The claimant is also in violation of the Equality Act 2010 Chapter 2 s26 ss. 1. (a): A person (A) harasses another (B) if-

1. A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
2. The conduct has the purpose or effect of –

1. Violating B’s dignity, or
2. Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B

Section 4A, ss. 3 also states that:
For the purposes of this section A ought to know that A's course of conduct will cause B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B's usual day-to-day activities if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause B such alarm or distress. The defendant may wish to pursue a counterclaim due to loss of earnings and distress in light of the claimant’s serious breaches of both the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Equality Act 2010.

[charitynjw]

If you are wanting to counterclaim, see post #31

[Lyat]

As a final note, should I date the notice from the date I received it or the date on the claim form? I think my defense is completed then and I'll send it off tomorrow. If it's fine online, do I print it out and sign it first? How do I sign the defence online otherwise?

[charitynjw]

As a final note, should I date the notice from the date I received it or the date on the claim form? I think my defense is completed then and I'll send it off tomorrow. If it's fine online, do I print it out and sign it first? How do I sign the defence online otherwise?

IMHO this (below) is wishy-washy & won't be taken as serious.

The defendant may wish to pursue a counterclaim due to loss of earnings and distress in light of the claimant’s serious breaches of both the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Equality Act 2010.

Either do or don't; do not sit on the fence attempting to hedge bets.

[Lyat]

Yep, I agree. I think I'll counter claim! I'm a little scared but I'm going to do it. Any advice re the other points? (Date of issue and signing the defence)

[charitynjw]

Yep, I agree. I think I'll counter claim! I'm a little scared but I'm going to do it. Any advice re the other points? (Date of issue and signing the defence)

If you'd like to post up a final draft, we can give it the once-over for you.

[Lyat]

If you'd like to post up a final draft, we can give it the once-over for you.

Defence and counterclaim

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle MA03 EBJ and the claim is denied on the following grounds any of which is fatal to the claimant’s case.


1) The Claim Form issued on (do I enter the date I received the notice or the date on the form?)by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by the Claimant’s Legal Representative nor a named employee/Director, nor any legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer. The claim should, therefore, be struck out as the claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. It is therefore denied that the £50 solicitor’s fee can be claimed. Also, the full claim is denied as the claim has not been signed by either the landowner or the landowner’s solicitor.

2. The Particulars of Claim discloses no cause of action. The claimant has not provided particulars to allow the defendant to provide a reasonable defence having not stated clearly within their letters what the charge is for. 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 will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to or signed by the Defendant.

(a) The Claim form Particulars contained insufficient detail for cause of action. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention.

3. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of CPR 16. In particular it does not include a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies as it must do under CPR 16.4(1)(a) Neither are they compliant with practice direction 16 7.5.

4. The Defendant took all necessary measures to ensure that he/she complied with his/her obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions. More specifically, the defendant:

a) Made several attempts to make payment through the phone application PhoneandPay but the application crashed and returned error messages which were reported immediately.

b)Following the failed attempts through the application, a call was made to the number stated within the app however, there was no answer. A voicemail was left but the call was not returned the same day.
c) An email was sent the same evening further detailing the incident and offer to pay which was refused through a return call the following day during which the terms and offer were changed- all of which are documented and will be evidenced in court.
By reason of the matters above, it was impossible for the Defendant to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, that is to make payment. The claimant’s failure to process the payment is not the responsibility of the defendant, and no parking charge can be due. The defendant followed the directions and registered full and true vehicle and banking details via the system put in place by the company.Accordingly, the Defendant is absolved from any liability and it is further denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed in the Particulars of Claim or any relief at all.


5. Further to the claimant’s claim of breach of terms and conditions, the defendant is unaware of which terms and conditions apply given the company changed the terms the following day when changing its original offer which the defendant did not agree to. The claimant’s failure to process the payment is not the responsibility of the defendant, and no parking charge can be due. The defendant followed the directions and registered full and true vehicle and banking details via the system put in place by the company.Under UK common contract law, one of the basic requirements is for the parties to accept the offer being made. The defendant did not accept the new offer being made for the same incident which rendered any contract non-existent.

6. The Particulars of Claim state that it concerns a parking charge that was due on 20/ 06/ 2018. No charge could possibly have existed on this date. The Claimant did not issue a parking Notice on this date and as established nullified their own terms and conditions when making a counter offer that was rejected. No debt could have been outstanding on the date stated in the Particulars of Claim that are therefore untrue.

Counterclaim

7. The claimant was made fully aware of the defendant’s medical condition and how their behaviour was causing the defendant serious medical harm by triggering the defendant’s disability. The claimant was made aware of their harassment and its direct effect on the defendant. The claimant insisted on harassing the defendant which breaches Section 1 ss.1 (a) & (b) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which states: A person must not pursue a course of conduct-
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other

8. The claimant further breaches Section 1A, ss. (c) (ii) of the same Act which states:A person must not pursue a course of conduct-

1. By which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not those mentioned above)-

(ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

9. The claimant is also in violation of the Equality Act 2010 Chapter 2 s26 ss. 1. (a): A person (A) harasses another (B) if-

1. A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
2. The conduct has the purpose or effect of –

1. Violating B’s dignity, or
2. Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B

Section 4A, ss. 3 also states that:
For the purposes of this section A ought to know that A's course of conduct will cause B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B's usual day-to-day activities if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause B such alarm or distress.

10. The defendent has not been able to spend time in recovery since the relapse due to the claimants discrimination which has further impeded upon the defendents health and domestic life. The Claimant is liable for the family's loss of earnings and emotional distress.

Statement of truth

The defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

[charitynjw]

If it were me I'd make reference to the byelaw issue in the defence part.
If you don't bring it in now it might be difficult to raise the point later.
Just a brief "The Defendent believes........" is sufficient.

I would put the date of issue per the N1 court claim.

[Lyat]

If it were me I'd make reference to the byelaw issue in the defence part.
If you don't bring it in now it might be difficult to raise the point later.
Just a brief "The Defendent believes........" is sufficient.

I would put the date of issue per the N1 court claim.

So perhaps:

"The defendant believes that the land in question is also governed by byelaws as suggested by various Crawley Borough Council planning documents. Railway premises, including lands within their boundary are governed via bye laws. If so, they are not 'relevant land' for the purposes of private parking charges as covered in Schedule 4, paragraph 3 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. "

Where would I put this? Perhaps between paragraph 5 & 6?

[charitynjw]

So perhaps:

"The defendant believes that the land in question is also governed by byelaws as suggested by various Crawley Borough Council planning documents. Railway premises, including lands within their boundary are governed via bye laws. If so, they are not 'relevant land' for the purposes of private parking charges as covered in Schedule 4, paragraph 3 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. "

Where would I put this? Perhaps between paragraph 5 & 6?

Looks good.

Between 5 & (the current) 6, & renumber.

[Lyat]

Brilliant & agreed!

See final version below...

Defence

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle MA03 EBJ and the claim is denied on the following grounds any of which is fatal to the claimant’s case.

1. The Claim Form issued on 15^thApril 2019 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by the Claimant’s Legal Representative nor a named employee/Director, nor any legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer. The claim should, therefore, be struck out as the claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. It is therefore denied that the £50 solicitor’s fee can be claimed. Also, the full claim is denied as the claim has not been signed by either the landowner or the landowner’s solicitor.

2. The Particulars of Claim discloses no cause of action. The claimant has not provided particulars to allow the defendant to provide a reasonable defence having not stated clearly within their letters what the charge is for. 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 will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to or signed by the Defendant.

(a) The Claim form Particulars contained insufficient detail for cause of action. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention.

3. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of CPR 16. In particular it does not include a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies as it must do under CPR 16.4(1)(a) Neither are they compliant with practice direction 16 7.5.

4. The Defendant took all necessary measures to ensure that he/she complied with his/her obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions. More specifically, the defendant:

a) Made several attempts to make payment through the phone application PhoneandPay but the application crashed and returned error messages which were reported immediately.

b)Following the failed attempts through the application, a call was made to the number stated within the app however, there was no answer. A voicemail was left but the call was not returned the same day.

c) An email was sent the same evening further detailing the incident and offer to pay which was refused through a return call the following day during which the terms and offer were changed- all of which are documented and will be evidenced in court.

By reason of the matters above, it was impossible for the Defendant to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, that is to make payment. The claimant’s failure to process the payment is not the responsibility of the defendant, and no parking charge can be due. The defendant followed the directions and registered full and true vehicle and banking details via the system put in place by the company.Accordingly, the Defendant is absolved from any liability and it is further denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed in the Particulars of Claim or any relief at all.

5. Further to the claimant’s claim of breach of terms and conditions, the defendant is unaware of which terms and conditions apply given the company changed the terms the following day when changing its original offer which the defendant did not agree to. The claimant’s failure to process the payment is not the responsibility of the defendant, and no parking charge can be due. The defendant followed the directions and registered full and true vehicle and banking details via the system put in place by the company. Under UK common contract law, one of the basic requirements is for the parties to accept the offer being made. The defendant did not accept the new offer being made for the same incident which rendered any contract non-existent.

6. The defendant believes that the land in question is also governed by bye-laws as suggested by various Crawley Borough Council planning documents. Railway premises, including lands within their boundary, are governed via bye-laws. If so, they are not 'relevant land' for the purposes of private parking charges as covered in Schedule 4, paragraph 3 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

7. The Particulars of Claim state that it concerns a parking charge that was due on 20/ 06/ 2018. No charge could possibly have existed on this date. The Claimant did not issue a parking Notice on this date and as established nullified their own terms and conditions when making a counter offer that was rejected. No debt could have been outstanding on the date stated in the Particulars of Claim that are therefore untrue.

Counterclaim

8. The claimant was made fully aware of the defendant’s medical condition and how their behaviour was causing the defendant serious medical harm by triggering the defendant’s disability. The claimant was made aware of their harassment and its direct effect on the defendant. The claimant insisted on harassing the defendant which breaches Section 1 ss.1 (a) & (b) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which states:

A person must not pursue a course of conduct-
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other

9. The claimant further breaches Section 1A, ss. (c) (ii) of the same Act which states:A person must not pursue a course of conduct-

a) By which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not those mentioned above)

-(ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

10. The claimant is also in violation of the Equality Act 2010 Chapter 2 s26 ss. 1. (a):
A person (A) harasses another (B) if-

a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
b) The conduct has the purpose or effect of –

i) Violating B’s dignity, or
ii) Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B

Section 4A, ss. 3 also states that:
For the purposes of this section, A ought to know that A's course of conduct will cause B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B's usual day-to-day activities if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause B such alarm or distress.

10. The defendant has not been able to spend time in recovery since the relapse due to the claimant’s discrimination which has further impeded upon the defendant’s health and domestic life. The Claimant is liable for the family's loss of earnings and emotional distress.

Statement of Truth

The defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.