CEL COURT DEFENCE! PLEASE HELP, Court defence Options

[parkingdefence2k...]

Dear all,

Thank you in advance for your help and guidance. I have already spent many hours reading the thread here and it has been really helpful. However, i am new to this and so it has been a bit of information overload. I apologise in advance if i am repeating anything that has been said before or not doing things exactly right. Go easy on me

Background: I received a claim form from the county court a few weeks back. I work away from home but luckily i caught it in time. The issue date was 21/11/18. i have already completed my acknowledgment of service online as per advice on this forum and MSE forum leaving the defence space blank. From my understanding (correct me if i am wrong), i have till monday 24/12/18 to submit my defence (33 days from issue date). I am in the process of constructing my defence based on various forum advice . I would appreciate any further pointers that are specific to my case (which is described below).

Particulars to my case: The private land in this dispute did not have clearly marked bays. Furthermore they used ANPR camera to see the registered car entering and exiting after half an hour to issue a ticket that was posted to the registered keeper. No PCN was stuck to the windshield. Furthermore, the NTK had only an entry photo and exit photo with no photo of the car parked not displaying a "valid permit". I have obtained photos of the signage as well as photos of the private land with no parking bays and was wondering if i should post them here?

My defence so far (Still a work in progress):


1/ The Claim Form issued on the 21st November 2018 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position within the company and state their position, yet the form only states that it has been issued by Civil Enforcement Limited as the Claimant's Legal Representative. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

2/The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper having parked and 'Not Displaying a Valid permit'

3/ Due to the sparse details on letter to keeper, the equally lacking and embarrassing Particulars of Claim (POC) and the complete lack of any Letter before Claim, this Claimant afforded the Defendant no opportunity to take stock, obtain data, copy letters, and images of the contract on signage. There has been no chance to even understand the allegation, let alone discuss or dispute it prior to court action, as should have been the case under the October 2017 pre-action protocol for debt claims.!

4/ The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a poorly marked ‘private land’ with no allocated parking spaces with and no signage describing the restricted area of parking. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where vistors are allowed or not allowed to park with a parking permit, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

5. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorization from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.


7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £X ( upwards of 80 pounds-did not want to state the exact amount incase it can be identified) , for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Thank you.

[Advertisement]

[ostell]

Perhaps post up the NTK for other eyes to see and comment? Redact identifying detail bit leave dates. Readable photo of signs might help.

[Redivi]

You need to attack the additional charges and the fake legal representative fee much harder

The central tactic with defending CEL claims is to paint the company as so dishonest with its fake debt collector and solicitor charges that it will cancel the claim rather than let a judge examine its business practices

[parkingdefence2k...]

sorry the images are larger than 1.95mb. is there any other way to post them here? thank you

[ostell]

So you post the images on an external site and provide the link on here. https://imgur.com/ or any of the many others. It's in the Read this First section

[Redivi]

We don't need to see the images

CEL signs are always mounted high with the charge in small print near the bottom

Don't see the relevance of whether parking bays were marked