Tweet
Dealing with DEAL regarding Whitby Co-op Car Park
Hi there
Like so many on this forum this is my first posting in response to a County Court Claim from DEAL. I’ve read a lot of the related threads and it has certainly been an education! My case is similar to many others – I was on holiday with my wife in the Whitby area in July 2012, and a few weeks after returning home received a PCN from CEL which did not specify to which car park the supposed offence related. I followed online advice, ignoring it (and not keeping it). After two and a half years I was stunned to receive a claim for £215 from Northampton County Court, the particulars of which revealed that it stemmed from a stay in Whitby Co-op car park – which is now famous enough to have its own Facebook protest page. The claim was signed by M.Schwartz (spelt correctly!). Where my case differs from others is that the claim form had been misdelivered; the date of service was the 5 March, but I didn’t get it until 28 March. After some frantic research and phone calls to the court I was told that the case still awaited action so I was able to email an acknowledgement of service. I then followed it up with a very rushed emailed defence submitted on 3 April (i.e. just within the 28 day deadline), but having had the time to review some other threads I’m worried that it is rather too thin.
IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO: XXXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:- DEBT ENFORCEMENT & ACTION LIMITED, Claimant
-AND-
XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Defendant
DEFENCE
1. It is denied that the alleged signs constitute an offer by the Operator to enter into a contract with the Claimant. Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There is no consideration from Civil Enforcement Limited to the driver; the gift of parking is the landowner’s, not Civil Enforcement Limited. There is no consideration from motorist to Civil Enforcement Limited. Any fees for parking are due to the landowner and not Civil Enforcement Limited.
2. No admissions are made as to the Claimant’s assertion that ANPR cameras recorded the Defendant’s vehicle as the Defendant has no knowledge of such matters. It is admitted that the Defendant’s vehicle entered the Car Park on 26 July 2012 at approximately 13.30 and left on 26 July 2012 approximately four hours later. During that period the Defendant undertook his shopping at the Co-op, as well as visiting other sites in the town.
3. It is denied that as a consequence of the Defendant’s conduct a charge was incurred; in any event the Claimant has not pleaded in the particulars of claim how such charge is alleged to have been incurred.
4. It is not accepted that the Claimant wrote to the Defendant ‘several times’ in respect of non-payment of debt. The Defendant accepts that one demand was received from Civil Enforcement Limited in August 2012, but this demand did not make clear to which car park the demand related. Furthermore the initial charge of £45.00 and subsequent charges now totalling £215.00 is considered penal in nature and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
5. It is contested that the debt ‘was assigned to the Claimant with the knowledge of The Co-operative’. The Co-operative Group ceased their association with Civil Enforcement Limited in 2012, and are currently assisting the defence in a similar case at Bristol County Court - A79YP365 Debt Enforcement & Action Ltd v Colclough.
I then tried contacting the Co-op, as others appear to have been successful in appealing to them. However, the response I got said it was out of their hands. I tried another email with specific queries about the lack of detail on the PCN, the ongoing case in Bristol, the lack of planning permission for the cameras and the assertion on the claim form that the debt had been assigned to the Claimant with the knowledge of the Co-op. The response was:
Dear XXXXXXXXXXX
Thank you for your further email. I have provided our answers below in relation to the further questions asked by yourself.
Every PCN that we have seen issued by Civil Enforcement has the name of the Car Park relating to the incident (this is in the orange box on the PCN) and I can only advise that if this was not the case on the PCN sent to you that you use this as part of your defence.
I can confirm that we were not aware of the debt being assigned by civil enforcement.
As the test case has not been conducted, it would be unfair to speculate about points that may be raised.
The cameras have now been removed from a property in Whitby as we are no longer contracting with Civil Enforcement
I can only re-iterate that we are not in a position to help further and, as we are not legally trained, any further queries should be directed to a legal professional.
Yours sincerely
Steven Wheeler
Car Parking Executive Team
Today I received the notice of allocation to the small claims track, with the DQ and option for mediation. I have until 1 May to return the DQ where I have to specify a number of witnesses. I’m not sure what to put here. I could include my wife who was with me, but I am also wanting to have the opportunity to beef up the defence with reference to previous cases etc. I would particularly like to be able to refer to others who received PCNs with no identifying details which turned out to relate to this car park, but who had the good sense to keep theirs as evidence! Please can you advise on next steps?
Like so many on this forum this is my first posting in response to a County Court Claim from DEAL. I’ve read a lot of the related threads and it has certainly been an education! My case is similar to many others – I was on holiday with my wife in the Whitby area in July 2012, and a few weeks after returning home received a PCN from CEL which did not specify to which car park the supposed offence related. I followed online advice, ignoring it (and not keeping it). After two and a half years I was stunned to receive a claim for £215 from Northampton County Court, the particulars of which revealed that it stemmed from a stay in Whitby Co-op car park – which is now famous enough to have its own Facebook protest page. The claim was signed by M.Schwartz (spelt correctly!). Where my case differs from others is that the claim form had been misdelivered; the date of service was the 5 March, but I didn’t get it until 28 March. After some frantic research and phone calls to the court I was told that the case still awaited action so I was able to email an acknowledgement of service. I then followed it up with a very rushed emailed defence submitted on 3 April (i.e. just within the 28 day deadline), but having had the time to review some other threads I’m worried that it is rather too thin.
IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO: XXXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:- DEBT ENFORCEMENT & ACTION LIMITED, Claimant
-AND-
XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Defendant
DEFENCE
1. It is denied that the alleged signs constitute an offer by the Operator to enter into a contract with the Claimant. Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There is no consideration from Civil Enforcement Limited to the driver; the gift of parking is the landowner’s, not Civil Enforcement Limited. There is no consideration from motorist to Civil Enforcement Limited. Any fees for parking are due to the landowner and not Civil Enforcement Limited.
2. No admissions are made as to the Claimant’s assertion that ANPR cameras recorded the Defendant’s vehicle as the Defendant has no knowledge of such matters. It is admitted that the Defendant’s vehicle entered the Car Park on 26 July 2012 at approximately 13.30 and left on 26 July 2012 approximately four hours later. During that period the Defendant undertook his shopping at the Co-op, as well as visiting other sites in the town.
3. It is denied that as a consequence of the Defendant’s conduct a charge was incurred; in any event the Claimant has not pleaded in the particulars of claim how such charge is alleged to have been incurred.
4. It is not accepted that the Claimant wrote to the Defendant ‘several times’ in respect of non-payment of debt. The Defendant accepts that one demand was received from Civil Enforcement Limited in August 2012, but this demand did not make clear to which car park the demand related. Furthermore the initial charge of £45.00 and subsequent charges now totalling £215.00 is considered penal in nature and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
5. It is contested that the debt ‘was assigned to the Claimant with the knowledge of The Co-operative’. The Co-operative Group ceased their association with Civil Enforcement Limited in 2012, and are currently assisting the defence in a similar case at Bristol County Court - A79YP365 Debt Enforcement & Action Ltd v Colclough.
I then tried contacting the Co-op, as others appear to have been successful in appealing to them. However, the response I got said it was out of their hands. I tried another email with specific queries about the lack of detail on the PCN, the ongoing case in Bristol, the lack of planning permission for the cameras and the assertion on the claim form that the debt had been assigned to the Claimant with the knowledge of the Co-op. The response was:
Dear XXXXXXXXXXX
Thank you for your further email. I have provided our answers below in relation to the further questions asked by yourself.
Every PCN that we have seen issued by Civil Enforcement has the name of the Car Park relating to the incident (this is in the orange box on the PCN) and I can only advise that if this was not the case on the PCN sent to you that you use this as part of your defence.
I can confirm that we were not aware of the debt being assigned by civil enforcement.
As the test case has not been conducted, it would be unfair to speculate about points that may be raised.
The cameras have now been removed from a property in Whitby as we are no longer contracting with Civil Enforcement
I can only re-iterate that we are not in a position to help further and, as we are not legally trained, any further queries should be directed to a legal professional.
Yours sincerely
Steven Wheeler
Car Parking Executive Team
Today I received the notice of allocation to the small claims track, with the DQ and option for mediation. I have until 1 May to return the DQ where I have to specify a number of witnesses. I’m not sure what to put here. I could include my wife who was with me, but I am also wanting to have the opportunity to beef up the defence with reference to previous cases etc. I would particularly like to be able to refer to others who received PCNs with no identifying details which turned out to relate to this car park, but who had the good sense to keep theirs as evidence! Please can you advise on next steps?
Comment