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

[charitynjw]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

Have you checked to see whether CEL have filed a Certificate of Service yet, & if so, what does it say, datewise?

[innocentrabbit]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

I have contacted the court and was told that the certificate of service has not yet been sent by CEL. I have no knowledge of the date.

[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

Hi Pipsy,

Thats 3 of us then...all received the PoC with the same date (clear mass mailer) and all 3 received their letters considerably later than that!
@charitynjw we may need some advice how to approach the courts with this sort of evidence, or alternitively, could we use each others statements as evidence? i.e. create a template statement document? I would be happy to sign an official statement and send to you both if it could go into your evidence.....again, will need charity to confirm this is above board and worth while...

[Pipsy]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

i will too

[charitynjw]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

@OliverJames & [MENTION=108356]Pipsy[/MENTION]

Could you contact the court to see if you could obtain a copy of the cert of service?

[OliverJames]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

@OliverJames & [MENTION=108356]Pipsy[/MENTION]

Could you contact the court to see if you could obtain a copy of the cert of service?

Yes I will call them this morning. Are they allowed to send it out?

Fyi...I received the attached yesterday...

[charitynjw]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

Yes I will call them this morning. Are they allowed to send it out?

Fyi...I received the attached yesterday...

Morning!

CEL tend to drop the claim when challenged, esp when the defence is robust.

It may well be that they choose not to reply to the defence within 28 days or at all.
The claim will then be stayed (a sort of court claim 'limbo'), languishing there until or unless one of the parties makes some kind of move, such as the Claimant applying to 'lift' the stay, or the Defendant applying to strike it out. As these kinds of application to the court cost circa £250, there are a lot of claims floating around in limbo.
Neither party are informed by the court that the claim is stayed, so keep tabs on the status of the claim.
& yes, you should be able to get a copy of the cert of service.
Keep digging!

[OliverJames]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

Morning!

CEL tend to drop the claim when challenged, esp when the defence is robust.

It may well be that they choose not to reply to the defence within 28 days or at all.
The claim will then be stayed (a sort of court claim 'limbo'), languishing there until or unless one of the parties makes some kind of move, such as the Claimant applying to 'lift' the stay, or the Defendant applying to strike it out. As these kinds of application to the court cost circa £250, there are a lot of claims floating around in limbo.
Neither party are informed by the court that the claim is stayed, so keep tabs on the status of the claim.
& yes, you should be able to get a copy of the cert of service.
Keep digging!

I was talking to my OH about this last night and cant believe how much effort and time goes into fighting these b-strds

You guys who give up your personal time to help us out should be knighted

[charitynjw]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

Funny you should mention that.
My OH keeps telling me to get knighted (I think that's what she yells, anyway!)

Keep an ongoing record of time spent on research, out-of-pocket expenses, etc
Litigants in Person rate is £19/hr.

[Pipsy]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

Morning all ....yes I will this morning too.......charitynjw could you plesse check my defence too .....and I agree you helped me loads too as I wouldn't of had a clue.. . thanks again Pipsy

[charitynjw]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

Morning all ....yes I will this morning too.......charitynjw could you plesse check my defence too .....and I agree you helped me loads too as I wouldn't of had a clue.. . thanks again Pipsy

Done.

[OliverJames]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

Funny you should mention that.
My OH keeps telling me to get knighted (I think that's what she yells, anyway!)

hahaha she sounds very similar to mine

[Pipsy]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

Thanks so is it all ok.... do i attach any pics when i send it to the court with m defence or not thanks again Pipsy p.s shall i send it today

[charitynjw]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

Thanks so is it all ok.... do i attach any pics when i send it to the court with m defence or not thanks again Pipsy p.s shall i send it today

No need to attach exhibit evidence at this stage,but keep everything on file for later (ifitgoesthat far!)

[innocentrabbit]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court Claim Form

For my CEL defence I currently have this, but I am wondering if I should include/alter the NTK part. Thank you!

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