Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Ok thankyou

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Hi this is the particulars of claim from CEL..... what should I do next..regards Pipsy

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

They have dated the PoC 11th October 2017 but the postage mark shows 31st October 2017 ...

[charitynjw]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Keep that envelope safe.
They have served the separate PoC out of time...they can't unring that bell!

They should also file a Certificate of Service within 14 days of service of the Particulars of Claim.
(Apologies...I did say 7 days in an earlier post.....I've edited a correction.)

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

LOL LOL that made me laugh ...so what do i do now

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

do i file my defence to the MCOL stating that the poc was not filed within the 14 days ??

[charitynjw]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Well, you have until Mon 13th Nov to file a defence, so no real panic on that. (33 days from court claim issue date - 10th Oct - falls on a Sunday, so next working day.)

Did you have a look at OliverJB's thread? (Link posted above.)

There is also some info added there regarding information which should be attached when the PoC is separately sent.

You ought to send a disclosure request for info. (Again, there is a good example posted on that thread....CPR 31.14 request....post #s 27,28)
Send asap, keep a copy & get proof of posting. (Post Office do a free certificate of posting.)

If you have any problems with accessing the info from the other thread, give us a shout & we'll get it for you.

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

i copied this from that thread will this be suitable
Dear Civil Enforcement Ltd:

Claim Ref: XXXXXXXXXX– Request for disclosure

On October 10th 2017 I received a County Court Claim from yourselves which I have acknowledged, and intend to defend in full.
To enable me to file my defence, I require inspection of documents relating to the case ahead of filing my defence.
to enable me to file my defence I require copies of the documents relating to the case by return should you be unable to do so, I refer you to the below mentioned defence deadline extension
1. Copies of any postal communication sent prior to the alleged offence
2. A copy of authority with the landowner, or if there is a chain of authorities, all relevant contracts between parties, to operate parking services on the relevant land.
3. A copy of your KADOE contract with the DVLA
4. A more detailed breakdown of the amount claimed on the court claim form

In accordance with CPR 31.15(c) I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.
You should note that this claim has not yet been allocated to a specific track and the provisions of CPR 27(2) are of no effect. Had your claim not been issued through CCBC the Claimant would have been obliged to attach copies of the documentation upon which it relies to the Particulars of Claim.
I, as Defendant, am entitled to see the documents on which the Claimant relies and which you must produce at trial. Disclosure at this stage will enable me to fully plead my case and further the Overriding Objective.
You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are copied to and received by me within 7 days of receiving this letter.
If you require more time in which to comply with this request you must tell me in writing and confirm your agreement to an extension of the time allowed for me to file my defence as allowed under CPR 15.5 so I may notify the court

Regards

- - - Updated - - -

so i send that as above ,,,, proof of posting

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Request disclosure by return....add "Due to separate Particulars being served, disclosure is urgently required"


shall i add that on too

[charitynjw]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Yep, I would.
I'll be surprised if they do disclose.....probably won't even respond!
But you'll have proof that you requested info that should be easy for them to send.

- - - Updated - - -

1. Copies of any postal communication sent with reference to the alleged contravention

I'd change to the above.
Otherwise, good to go!

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Done printed off and ready to post ( with proof of posting) tomorrow. Do i prepare my defence ready to send next week ,,,, Ive copied this

County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXXX

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited v XXX

Defence Statement

I am XX, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX at the time of the alleged offence. I currently reside at XXX.


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

The Claim Form issued on the 02/10/2017 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”.

This 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 badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
© The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged 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.
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.

This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye 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 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.


Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) 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.
(b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
© 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 huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

The Claimant has no standing to bring a case - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
a. It is believed the Claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. The Defendant has no evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name. Any such claim should be in the name of the landowner.
b. The Defendant asks the Claimant to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that the Claimant is entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has issued proceedings inappropriately, prematurely and without complying with the practice directions on pre-action conduct.

5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
© there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 (PoFA 2012):
a. The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. The Defendant is the registered keeper but was not the Driver. In order for the Claimant to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, they must do so within the strict requirements of PoFA 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: “If POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.”
b. The Claimant did not issue a “Notice to Driver” at the time of the alleged offence; therefore, the Claimant is put to strict proof that a “Notice to Keeper” was issued within the required timeframe of 14 days after the alleged offence in accordance with PoFA 2012 para. 9(5).
c. In failing to comply with the PoFA 2012, the Claimant cannot hold the Keeper liable for any of the claim.

Grace periods
The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken.
The CoP states:

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go...
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

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 3rd October 2017.

(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 vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

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

Signed



Date:

[I]On the [Date] I (or 'the Defendant') sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to [Claimants or Solicitor name]. requested the Claimant provide copies of the [XXXXX].
[Claimant or Solicitor] has not sent [any, or missing ones of these documents] to [me].


Also add that there has been no Certificate of Service of separate Particulars of Claim per CPR 6.


obviously i would change it to suit

Would i also mention the envelopes date in the defence too ..regards Karen

[charitynjw]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Most definitely mention the dates!
They can't change that either!

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Thankyou ..... do i send this defence around the 12th November...... thanks again for your advise regards pipsy

[charitynjw]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Treat it as a work in progress for the time being, & update it/amend as necessary, depending on how things pan out (ie if they don't respond to the disclosure request or do so inadequately, alter the defence to suit.)

We can take it as it comes & polish it prior to submitting it....12th is good.)

You may need to do so via email as it is fairly substantial.
ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

It will need to be an attachment, with header:-


In the Northampton County Court Business Centre

Claim No: [XXXXX]

[Claimants Name]

Claimant

And

[Defendants Name]

Defendant

DEFENCE

& a signed statement of truth at the bottom.

Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Signed ________________________________
Dated ________________________________

In the email subject box, put 'Civil Enforcement Ltd v [Pipsy], Court claim no [XXXXXXXX] - Defence'.

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Thankyou.... the car park is on Elgin rd which us off stoke rd.... but they've said in the pic its on Stoke road would that be helpful too xx