**STRUCK OUT!!** Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

[innocentrabbit]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

I still have the envelope for the PoC. The date stated on it is 01/11/2017 and I received the letter on the 2nd. Once I inform the court of this, then will I get time until the 30th November to prepare my defence?

The main reason why they may be keep stating that I was the driver is because I admitted to being the driver of the vehicle at the time of the PCN in an early email back in January, which I have attached.

Thank you! I will contact the court today and get back to you!

[innocentrabbit]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

I have just phoned the court and they have confirmed that CEL have not yet sent a certificate of service.

[innocentrabbit]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

How do I write to the court about the date of service for the particulars of claim was whenever I received it? (02/11/17).

[innocentrabbit]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

[MENTION=61850]OliverJames[/MENTION]

Here is the envelope from the PoC

[OliverJames]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

01/11 what an absolute sham!! And they claim it was sent before 11th October?

I am sure that @charitynjw and @ostell will be in the perfect place to point you in the right direction on this but I wasn't expecting it to be anywhere NEAR as obvious as that!!

Just to give you an idea of what i have done from this point...

I wrote an email to CEL asking why the timelines don't match up! (below email was sent yesterday to office@ce-service.co.uk)

On October 2^nd 2017 I received a County Court Claim from yourselves which I have acknowledged, and intend to defend in full.
As per Civil Procedure Rules you are expected to serve Particulars of Claim (PoC) within 14 days of issuing your claim form.

The court has advised me that you filed your N215 (Certificate of Service) on the 6^th October which confirms to the court that you had already sent your Particulars of Claim. CRP 7.5 clearly states that you are required to send this via First class post, which means this would have arrived on the 8^th or 9^th of October at the latest. Based on this, I am seeking clarity as to why, a) the date on this document is the 11^th October, seeing as the document would have only been drafted and sent on or before the 6^th October, and b) why the documents in fact arrived on 24^th October 2017?

For avoidance of doubt, the Money Claims Online user guide you will have read that “The certificate of service (N215) confirms to the court that you have sent the documents to the defendant”.

I would direct you to the fact that your signed Certificate of Service is supported by a Statement of Truth, & therefore to the consequences, via CPR 32.14, of filing false evidence
Can you please provide me with reasons for the discrepancies in the dates, and also proof of postage for both the N215 and Particulars of Service.

Along with this, you sent all communications to an incorrect address having received a letter from me sent on the 6^th clearly stating the correct address.

You chose to ignore this request, as well as showing a blatant disregard for the IPC code of practice for carrying out strict due diligence.

For avoidance of doubt, IPC code of practice (Page 33, final paragraph) clearly states that;
Before issuing court proceedings on any unpaid parking charge which is over 12 months old, the operator must first perform a suitable check of the defendant’s last known address.

You have failed to comply with this and as such I recommend you cease and desist with immediate effect.

I look forward to hearing back from you in due course.

Yours sincerely

I then compiled my evidence which has gone into my file. I won't be sending anything to the courts until I am instructed to do so (unless told otherwise here.....) Unfortunately i don't have the envelope so my evidence is a witness statement and other proof that the letters turned up on the date I have stated. Your's will be your envelope which is still making me laugh haha!!

The guys here will confirm exactly what the process is, but wanted to share mine with you in case the email can be of any assistance

OliverJames

[innocentrabbit]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

Yes, the particulars of claim letter is dated 11th October.

[OliverJames]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

Yes, the particulars of claim letter is dated 11th October.

From what I understand, they haven't even filed your N215 yet!! When did you receive your initial claim form again?

Did the court mention that they have a backlog? I was told on the 20th October they were still processing certificate of service docs from the 9th....

[innocentrabbit]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

The issue date of the claim form is 11th October as well.

The court didn't mention anything about a backlog, I was simply told that the court has not received the certificate of service as of yet

[charitynjw]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

[MENTION=61850]OliverJames[/MENTION]
Is there some way that you guys & others in a similar situation could compare notes?

It might be an idea if it could be shown to the judge that it isn't just a one-off situation.

Just a thought!

[Pipsy]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

[QUOTE=charitynjw;762089]@OliverJames
Is there some way that you guys & others in a similar situation could compare notes?

It might be an idea if it could be shown to the judge that it isn't just a one-off situation.

Hi my letter was dated 11th October and the envelope
was dated 31st October sorting my defence out now

[charitynjw]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

[MENTION=108356]Pipsy[/MENTION]

Yep...you were one of the people I was referring to.

[OliverJames]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

[QUOTE=Pipsy;762092]

@OliverJames
Is there some way that you guys & others in a similar situation could compare notes?

It might be an idea if it could be shown to the judge that it isn't just a one-off situation.

Hi my letter was dated 11th October and the envelope
was dated 31st October sorting my defence out now

I'm up for that!

[Pipsy]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

how could we do that ... any ideas ? I am willing for them to use me as a reference and vice versa...... oliverjames and innocentrabbit

[charitynjw]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

@mbonini is a CEL thread
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...928#post760928

As is @Bluegerry
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...050#post761050

[innocentrabbit]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

Based on my PoC what defence points should I include? Should I not include the fact that CEL has backdated the PoC and thereby given me less time?

Please if you could reflect on my defence:

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: --------

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited v -------

I am -------, the defendant in this matter and previous registered keeper of vehicle --------. I currently reside at ----------.

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

1. The Claim Form issued on 11/10/2017 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 (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 will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

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 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. 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 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 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. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £326.57 for outstanding debt and damages.

4. 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.

5. 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 (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.

6. 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) 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

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 12th June 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

Thank you.