Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015 - Won

[missg01]

Received a claim? Yes
Issue Date: 9-7-2015
Amount approx: £236.88
Claimant: Civil Enforcement Limited
Solicitor: Mr Ashley Cohen
Original Credit:

Particulars of Claim:
Outstanding debt and damages
14/06/12 Ref 4524130277 £130.00
08/07/15 Solicitor Fee £50.00

Total due £180.00

The claimant claims the sum of £211.88 for
outstanding debt and damages
including 31.88 interest pursuant to
S.69 of the County courts act 1984
Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to 08/07/15
Same rate to judgement or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to judgment- 0.04
Total debt and interest due- 211.88
I will provide the defendant with separate
detailed particulars within 14 days after service
of the claim form.

Stat Barred? No

Have sent: Acknowledged the Claim

Other Info:
I have received the county claim forms and submitted my acknowledgment of service on 14/07/2015.

I have also written an email to the co op group to explain my disgust as a loyal customer for many years and have received a reply which I can submit should anyone who can help me needs to see this?

It basically states they are very sorry but as its gone to this stage nothing they can do to stop and I should get advice BUT... If I do have to pay them then Co Op will give me vouchers for full amount I have paid to these rob dogs - I don't understand why they do this in the first place to their customers?!

Can someone please advise my next steps...I believe I need to submit my defence but will need help with this please


Hoping iv used the right thread and wont get told off - sorry if I have?

[mystery1]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

Have you any correspondence from before the claim ?

Both

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...265#post562265

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...Fine-from-2012

have documents. The notice of assignment if you have it is huge although we can win without it.

Also post up the claim form please. (suitably sanitised).

M1

[missg01]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

Hi Mystery1,

Many thanks for your response...Guess what I FOUND THE ASSIGNMENT LETTER! It was one of the only ones I didn't scrap!!

As I'm at work to do this - I don't know how to sanitise my documents...Can I inbox them to you unsanitised?

Will also need a defence soon I think?

[missg01]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

[MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]

I managed to find Paint! Please see attached.. More docs to follow inc. the main letter you wanted to see

[missg01]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

[MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] Please find attached Assignment Letters.

Can you confirm when I need to get my defence in by? (Sorry just want to make sure iv got it right)

Next steps now are wait for response from the letters you advised to send then if nothing send off my defence...Correct?


Ever so grateful for all your support!!

[mystery1]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

Can you confirm when I need to get my defence in by? (Sorry just want to make sure iv got it right)

Next steps now are wait for response from the letters you advised to send then if nothing send off my defence...Correct?

As you have filed acknowledgement of service i make it 10/08/15.


We should wait until next week to see if we get any replies before we consider a defence.

It's awesome you found the assignment letter

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

You need to email a defence in today (monday)

ccbcdefendants@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk


Form and content of emails

When you email the court the subject line of your mail must contain (in the following order): -

• The claim number
• The title of the claim (abbreviated if necessary) **
• The subject matter (e.g. defence)
• If relating to a hearing the date and time of hearing
• The judge or legal advisers name, where the correspondence/document is for their attention

**If your email is in relation to a family matter, please refer to the initials only.
Your message should also contain the name, telephone number and email address of the sender. If you email us we will normally send any reply to you by email.
Correspondence and documents may be sent as either text or attachments. Where there is a practice form, it must be sent in that form by attachment.
Attachments must be in one of the following formats and the complete email (including any attachment(s)) must not exceed 10Mb



IN THE [TOWN] COUNTY COURT CASE No.
BETWEEN
[IVOR PROBLEM] Claimant
AND
[JUSTIN TIME] Defendant
DEFENCE






1. The Defendant denies that she is liable to the Claimant either as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all. Save where otherwise admitted, each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied.


2. I am the Defendant, xxxxx, a brain surgeon.


3. I am the registered keeper of vehicle, registration number xxxxx.

4. I have no knowledge of paragraph 1 in so far as Civil Enforcement Limited and the landowners are concerned and the claimant is put to strict proof that they have a valid contract with the landowners.

5. Paragraph 2 is outside my knowledge and is neither admitted nor denied. The claimant is put to strict proof.

6. Paragraphs 3 & 4 are denied. The claimant is put to strict proof they are entitled to enter in to a contract. Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There is no consideration from Civil Enforcement Ltd to motorist; The gift of parking is the landowner’s, not Civil Enforcement Ltd’s. There is no consideration from motorist to Civil Enforcement Ltd. The original parking charge letter is not an invoice. It is headed "parking enforcement notice" and it is clearly not a contract.

The Defendant is in no position to identify who visited a supermarket three years ago. The parking event took place before the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act and the Claimant cannot use it to hold the registered keeper liable if it cannot identify the driver. The claimant is put to strict proof of who was driving.

7. Paragraph 5 is denied as the claimant was not entitled to demand money from the defendant as none was owed as no contract was agreed.

8. Paragraph 6 is denied. Interest is not due as there is no base debt on which interest should be charged.

9. The claimants claim fails to meet CPR 16.2 (1) (a). It does not include a concise statement of the nature of the claim. It's either a contractual charge, damages for breach of contract or damages for trespass.

10. The claimants claim is also denied for the following reasons :-

A. The sign was not an offer but a threat of a punitive sanction to dissuade drivers from parking without payment and was therefore a penalty clause. It was not an offer to pay for a period of parking. The charge was held to be a penalty in the appeal ruling of Civil Enforcement Limited v McCafferty Their claim is based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on my part. Any losses are due to the landholder, not the Claimant. I further submit that the loss to the landholder is zero .


B. A charge of £130 is above and beyond that which the British Parking Association expects and is a trade association of which Civil Enforcement Ltd are a member. 19.5/6 of the trades code of practice states "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.


19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by The Office of Fair Trading. "



The claimant "Civil Enforcement Limited" assigned £113.75 of the alleged debt to Debt Enforcement & Action limited and in the letter of assignment, on their own headed paper, stated that the balance of £16.25 was kept due to an ongoing agreement and that it was due to the Co-operative. The claimant is attempting to be unjustly enriched and if the claim succeeds the defendant will be in the position of owing the same monies to 2 different companies.

Case Law Relied Upon:


a) With regard to point 4 & 6, there are two Court of Appeal judgments of note, ParkingEye v Somerfield [2012 EWCA Civ 1338] and HMRC v VCS [2013 EWCA Civ 186]. In the first, the court ruled that the parking company could not take legal action in their own name. In the second the court ruled they could. The nature of the relationship between landowner and car park operator, and the wording of the contract between them, is key to distinguishing these two cases. It is instructive therefore to compare the current relationship between ParkingEye and landowner, and the wording of the contract, to see whether this more closely resembles ParkingEye v Somerfield or HMRC v VCS. The defendant submits that it is obvious the relationship is more like the ParkingEye v Somerfield case. In 3JD04329 ParkingEye v Martin (12/05/2014 St Albans) District Judge Cross found ParkingEye’s contract to be more like the Somerfield case than VCS v HMRC, and
dismissed the claim. No transcript is currently available.



b) With regard to point 9 I rely upon the following cases and evidence:


OBServices v Thurlow (Worcester County Court, 2011) (Appeal hearing before Circuit Judge).3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke (Barrow-in-Furness, 19/12/2013) Deputy District Judge Buckley ruled that the amount charged was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as any loss was to the landowner and not the Claimant. “The problem which the present Claimants have, however, in making this assessment is that on any view, any loss is not theirs but that of the land owners or store owners”


3JD02555 ParkingEye v Pearce (Barrow-in-Furness, 19/12/2013) This case followed on from the previous case and Deputy District Judge Buckley ruled the same way.(No transcript is available)

3JD04791 ParkingEye Ltd v Heggie (Barnsley, 13/12/2013). The judge ruled that the amount charged by ParkingEye was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as the loss for a four minute overstay was negligible.


3JD03769 ParkingEye v Baddeley (Birmingham 11/02/2014) District Judge Bull. The judge found that the defendant's calculation of ParkingEye’s pre-estimate of loss of around £5 was persuasive. As ParkingEye could not explain how their alternate calculation of £53 was arrived at, he accepted the defendant's calculations. The transcript is not yet available.



The Office of fair Trading agreed with this, pointing out that all costs must be directly attributable to the breach, that day to day running costs could not be included and that the charge cannot be used to create a loss where none exists (Appendix A).


Appendix B contains the minutes of the British Parking Association where parking charge levels were decided, showing that there was no consideration whatsoever given to pre-estimate of loss, and that at least one factor was to set the charges the same as council penalties. The minutes also show there is no financial basis for the 40% discount but that it is needed to ‘prevent frivolous appeals. Any charge set to deter is a penalty. A charge set to the level of a penalty is a penalty.



Conclusion

I deny that I am liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed, or any amount at all. I invite the Court to strike out the claim as being without merit, and with no realistic prospect of success.





Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Dated this 2nd day of June 20....
To the court and
to the Claimant








..........................
JUSTIN TIME
Defendant
of [Address],
at which address he/she will accept service of proceedings.




The 2 appendix items can be found http://www.parking-prankster.com/sample-defence.html although the lettering is different you should know which is which.



M1

[missg01]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

Hi Mystery1,

I have had an email back from the claimants! Please advise soonest as I do not understand if this could affect anything..

It is in the attachment..

[mystery1]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

Hi Mystery1,

I have had an email back from the claimants! Please advise soonest as I do not understand if this could affect anything..

It is in the attachment..

Doesn't alter the progress of the claim.

Shady as hell. Might be worth a complaint to the BPA (probably they'll ignore it) and trading standards.

In fact, email them back.

Dear arsehole,

Just to confirm, you sent a notice of assignment before there was a deed of assignment ? I know a few people who are being taken to court by DEAL so would like to inform them of this once you confirm this (or if you do not reply obviously)

Thanks

M1

[missg01]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

i'll send the reply now and see what/if they reply haha (minus the endearing addressment)

If they admit to that it will look really bad on them right?

Could i also confirm..

1) In the defense letter above (TY btw)

IN THE [TOWN] COUNTY COURT CASE No. <<< Do I insert Northampton as the court or Nottingham (I am from Nottingham and have heard most cases are put to their local courts??)

3. I am the registered keeper of vehicle, registration number xxxxx. << I am no longer the registered keeper of this vehicle as it was on lease and handed back over a year ago??

Subject of email: Claim: B9GM69X3/Civil Enforcement Ltd v Irene Georgiou/Defence <<< Is this correct?

[mystery1]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

Use the court dealing with it now Northampton.

I Was the rk.


It could hinder them as many claims are proceeding under DEAL and some under CEL. (in reality they are the same people)

M1

[missg01]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

ok i have sent off my defense - do I need to do anything else on the web portal i.e. let them know I have sent my defense via email instead?

(I didn't send it as a word doc btw, as I'm on a Mac which I am having difficulty using and couldn't find word) Hope I get this all right as its quite scary when your doing this for the first time.

"I was the rk" ?? Sorry i didn't understand that??

Do you also know what the likelihood of the next step will be? If this goes to court I am on holiday for a few weeks at the end of this month and was worried incase they ask me to go to court during the time I am away? Any idea what would happen in this instance?

Sorry to be a pain and ask so many questions..

Have a lovely day!

[mystery1]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

Instead of I am the registered keeper put I was the registered keeper.


You shouldn't need to do anything via the portal but i think adding Defence sent via email xx/xx/2015 isn't a bad idea.

Do you also know what the likelihood of the next step will be? If this goes to court I am on holiday for a few weeks at the end of this month and was worried incase they ask me to go to court during the time I am away? Any idea what would happen in this instance?

A directions questionnaire from the court will be next (or a reply to defence but CEL aren't known for sending those). Write an email informing the court to dates you are away.

It does take a while to get to court, if indeed it does.

M1

[missg01]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

Thanks M1,

I forgot to mention I received these in the post recently also from CEL..

It seems they have been quite responsive which is not something i expected?

[mystery1]

Re: Court Claim - Civil Enforcement Limited / - 9-7-2015

Thanks M1,

I forgot to mention I received these in the post recently also from CEL..

It seems they have been quite responsive which is not something i expected?

Perfect. The defence is all good then

M1