County Court Claim Form Received - Advice Pls Options

[v209]

Hi folks,

I have received a CC Claim form, dated 12/04/23.

Its from CEL (Civil Enforcement Limited) for a private charge notice from 18/09/21.

I don't have the original PCN, don't remember receiving it and it was so long ago, I don't even remember being the driver to be honest. I understand that it isn't helpful to have ignored the subsequent letters, but was hoping it wouldn't get to CC claim. It has now, so I'd be immensely grateful for any advice on how to handle this now please.

I'd consider settling paying the original ticket, but the Total amount on the claim is £289.74 - which is ludicrous. I would be grateful for any help for next steps please, particularly if there's any way of reducing the claimed amount.

thank you.

All images as single photos here:
All images


All images in a pdf here:
Single PDF

[Advertisement]

[Redx]

Issue date 12th April 2023, CEL issued it, (. No lawyers.)

Don't do the AOS online until next week, say Tuesday or later

Email a SAR to the DPO at the claimant parking company CEL to obtain all your data, today, attaching copies of 2 recent redacted utility bills as proof of I D under the GDPR law, plus add an unredacted copy of the claim form too

Then study posts 5 & 2 in this thread over on mse parking forum

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...-first-thankyou

A typical loss in court is approximately £212, for one pcn invoice, not what they are claiming

[v209]

thank you - SAR sent and i'm reviewing your suggestions now.

[v209]

Thanks again, i've got a good sense of the process now. I've got the defense template ready, para's 2 and 3 updated as follows:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle.
3. The defendant is unable to recall the driver or the alleged violation itself given the significant passage of time since 18/09/2021.

does that land sensibly? Any other advice on strengthening please?

[Redx]

Thanks again, i've got a good sense of the process now. I've got the defense template ready, para's 2 and 3 updated as follows:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle.
3. The defendant is unable to recall the driver or the alleged violation itself given the significant passage of time since 18/09/2021.

does that land sensibly? Any other advice on strengthening please?

Study the defence paragraphs 2 to 5 in the recent draft by johny86 over on the mse parking forum and maybe adapt your draft to suit your own case

This post has been edited by Redx: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 - 16:53

[jfollows]

Thanks again, i've got a good sense of the process now. I've got the defense template ready, para's 2 and 3 updated as follows:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle.
3. The defendant is unable to recall the driver or the alleged violation itself given the significant passage of time since 18/09/2021.

does that land sensibly? Any other advice on strengthening please?

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but if CEL complied with the requirements of POFA (per the original documents you have now requested again through SAR) then they don't care one bit about (3) because they can hold you - the registered keeper - liable. Who was driving is no longer relevant.

[Redx]

Thanks again, i've got a good sense of the process now. I've got the defense template ready, para's 2 and 3 updated as follows:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle.
3. The defendant is unable to recall the driver or the alleged violation itself given the significant passage of time since 18/09/2021.

does that land sensibly? Any other advice on strengthening please?

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but if CEL complied with the requirements of POFA (per the original documents you have now requested again through SAR) then they don't care one bit about (3) because they can hold you - the registered keeper - liable. Who was driving is no longer relevant.

As can be seen in this long thread about a UKPC claim

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t=0&start=0

Not being the driver is not a defence point, it's just a statement of a fact that may or may not be relevant

Not being the driver is only relevant if the claimant failed to comply with pofa 2012

Being the keeper named on the V5c can definitely mean that the keeper has liability under POFA rules, the law, even if the keeper was on the ISS space station or in Timbuktu at the time, if the claimant can prove their case ( the alleged breach of the parking contract.) the rule may well be, your vehicle, your problem, your liability, their contractual claim is based on that premise

There is no defence to the claim in paragraph 2 or 3 so far, just statements

So address the actual POC on the claim form, plus the alleged contravention on the pcn, the terms and conditions on the signage, no landowner authority, etc

Check the NTK PCN for pofa compliance, or non compliance

This post has been edited by Redx: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 - 19:09

[hcandersen]

Can't wait to see the PCN Notice to Keeper.

In every subsequent document they refer to 'you'. Even the claim only makes reference to the driver. In my opinion, they're pursuing the driver therefore my guess is that the PCN is not designed to be PoFA compliant.

We shall see.

[v209]

thanks all. confirming that AOS has been completed. I'll study the suggested postings and will revert here with updated draft defence.

[v209]

Hi all, thanks for the advice. Here is my updated defence (relevant para's rather than the whole thing from suggested template):

Para 3 (in red) i'm awaiting the SAR response to see if NTK is POFA compliant - i've not had any acknowledgement of my SAR request (originally sent on 14th April) and so i've sent a chaser - still no acknowledgement - don't hold out much hope of seeing the NTK - so wanted to check if I should keep it in or not?


2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.
3. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle.
4. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.
5. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.
6. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and © how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum.
7. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form. The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity. The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3
8. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"
9. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either.
10. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out.

[Redx]

Personally

I 2), I would be adding a sentence stating something like

Due to the time that has elapsed it is not known who was driving on the dates listed on the POC, especially because the vehicle had multiple drivers at that time

Only add a sentence like this if true, because either the defendant was driving, or was not driving, or cannot recall who was driving in the event of multiple drivers

There will be some suitable defences already written with wordings like I outlined, feel free to adapt as required, bearing in mind that if it is not added then the defendant may be asked in court, so better to add the sentence rather than just what you have written in 2)

In 3) if the red sentence is staying, add an additional sentence that puts the claimant to strict proof of their claim, including compliance with POFA and strict proof that the defendant was driving at those dates and times

Adapt as required, because there may be better sentences than mine, IANAL!

This post has been edited by Redx: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 - 15:18

[nosferatu1001]

Your defence needs to be a Good faith one. You MUST file the defence before the deadline. That is imperative. You do not have a choice in this. If the star is not received in time, you file regardless.

[hcandersen]

OP, pl don't take the court to be foolish.

You posted: The defendant is unable to recall the driver or the alleged violation itself given the significant passage of time since 18/09/2021. ..which is tautologous and confusing because if you weren't the driver how could you possibly know anything about the events but if you were, then you would!

But the defendant doesn't need to remember events 19 months ago. The claim didn't come out of the blue, it followed a boringly predictable sequence of letters from the creditor all on the same theme, the events of 18 Sept. And the first of these would have been the NTK* served within 14 days followed by reminders sent at regular intervals which would have reminded you of the issue in dispute. So, if the claimant has a case your memory only needed to go back 14 days, not 19 months.

It is still possible that you couldn't remember even 14 days, but whether you could convince the court of this I don't know.

As for 'In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out.', IMO it's pretentious and, given the above, it's nonsense. As a minimum the letter dated Feb. 2022 stated clearly that the alleged breach was 'Payment not made in accordance with terms.....' so why should the court not see every subsequent letter, including the claim itself, as falling within the same context. It doesn't matter that this letter was extra-procedural, it told you what was claimed and why and it's in evidence.

Which rather knocks a hole in your draft, IMO.

I suggest you focus on what you know, what you deny and what you don't know and leave unrelated templates in the drawer.

*- I don't understand why the NTK is not in the claimant's evidence, it's the most fundamental building block of the whole procedure. Perhaps there isn't a compliant NTK in which case your SAR will reveal as much. So, what you don't know is on what basis the claimant holds you liable given that nowhere that I can see in the posted evidence is it claimed that you were the driver. References to the driver are always in the third person i.e. the driver did this, the driver's actions incurred etc.

Big deal. If they did, then the driver is liable, so pursue the driver.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 - 14:32

[v209]

Thanks everyone. Here's an iteration following your feedback:


2. It is admitted that on the material date, the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question; however, liability is denied. Due to the significant time that has elapsed since the dates listed on the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant is unable to ascertain with certainty who was driving the vehicle at the relevant times, particularly as multiple drivers had access to the vehicle during that period.

3. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant further requires the Claimant to provide strict proof of their claim, including evidence of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and unequivocal proof that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the relevant dates and times.
4. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.
5. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.
6. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and © how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum.
7. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form. The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity. The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3
8. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"
9. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either.

I've removed 10 as per the advice.

How does this read? I need to file the defence by Tuesday I think, so looking to finalise this week.

They've not responded to or acknowledged the SAR request yet either, so feels like an ICO escalation needed too.

As the POC is so generic, does the above defence work well?

thanks

This post has been edited by v209: Wed, 3 May 2023 - 11:11

[Redx]

Seems reasonable to me but IANAL.!

Check it for factual authenticity

The DPO at CEL had 30 days to reply to the SAR, if that deadline isn't met you should send it again as a reminder, telling them of their failure and giving them 7 days to comply

The ICO won't be interested until you have exhausted those conditions and still had no reply to the original SAR or the rinse and repeat SAR

If the 30 days isn't up, then you are premature in your expectations, you should expect a reply at the last possible moment, which is why we recommend emailing a SAR after the LBC has been issued, because they rarely reply until after the defence deadline when it's done after the issue date on the claim form

You probably have 33 days from the issue date on the claim form to email the defence as a pdf attachment, so more like 10 days left, but ideally email it on a weekday working day between 10am and 4pm, not on an evening or weekend or any bank holiday, to the ccbcaq email address at the CCBC. No exhibits are submitted at this stage, just your text only pdf defence document with a digital signature

So wait for other replies and critique

[nosferatu1001]

You have an immovable deadline - file the defence

If the sar isn't returned in time, it's irrelevant. You file your defence. No ifs or buts.

[Redx]

This is what usually happens when the defence submission deadline is missed ( so do not miss it.)

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=148724

[v209]

thanks everyone, completely understand and will definitely file as per instructions on Tuesday.

The statements are factually accurate, so just waiting to see if any further advice/suggestions from the community? Do you think I should also post this over at MSE?

[Redx]

thanks everyone, completely understand and will definitely file as per instructions on Tuesday.

The statements are factually accurate, so just waiting to see if any further advice/suggestions from the community? Do you think I should also post this over at MSE?

Always worth a punt over there, but as well as the proposed paragraphs above, add a link to this thread too

Many hands make light work

[v209]

Thank you so much - there is an update. They have returned the SAR.

Here is a copy of the bundle in a single pdf:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wrvf2hymchhshgh/S...dacted.pdf?dl=0

same with individual images if easier:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ycj248y9n59uuoh/...Q9OqNkLUqa?dl=0

Is the NTK POFA compliant?

Any further advice regarding the defence please?