Popla Appeal Rejected, Civil Enforcement Ltd - Options

[Dale12]

Hi,

Please can someone suggest what I can Do?

I received a fine from Civil Enforcement, for parking in Sport Space Hemel Hempstead, I used the car park first ever occasion to play squash with my friend who is member at the
club. I was not aware you have to input your car registration details into a terminal and neither was my friend.
My friend is a non-driver and was not familiar with the parking conditions on this site. I appealed against the decision and even provided Civil Enforcement Ltd our booking time
for the squash court and my friend's membership number. They rejected the matter sending me a letter to follow a process through POPLA, which I followed. I also contacted
the gym Sport Space who sent an email to Civil Enforcement to rescind the fine. I then learnt from Sport Space they were unable to rescind the fine, because I have appealed with
POPLA - this suggestion was made to me following a letter I received from Civil Enforcement Ltd. I have now just received a decision from POPLA who have rejected my appeal.

I even wrote an email to Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead MP) who wrote back to me that he has sent a letter to Sport Space. I find the whole process completely unjust, Civil
Enforcement have mis-informed me and should rescind the fine, but instead encourage you to follow a process to suit their own needs.

What Else can I Do?

[Advertisement]

[dale13]

What is the next stage I need to know about ? I have denied the claim and have informed the claim is not true and is just automated costs with no legal representation, I have also added the claimant cannot claim as they have no authority from the landowner.

[bearclaw]

It might have been discussed but Dale12 started the thread and we now have Dale13 answering? New account for the same person?

[nosferatu1001]

What is the next stage I need to know about ? I have denied the claim and have informed the claim is not true and is just automated costs with no legal representation, I have also added the claimant cannot claim as they have no authority from the landowner.

No

What EXACTLY was your defence?
You MUST have a copy of it, because you wouldnt have been so silly as to fill out the form, which noone ever said to do, npone here ever does, and you instead emailed it to the court?

You are completely able to find out the next stage - DQ.
MSE Forum -> Newbies thread -> POST TWO tells you exactly what all stages of the court process are. You must google it and go there.

[dale13]

Yes originally I started the thread under Dale12 however my login details I could no longer remember, so I decided to create a new account under Dale13 due to my old email address being redundant.

[SchoolRunMum]

Show us word for word what the defence said, so we can help when you need it, at Witness Statement & Evidence stage (see the MSE forum NEWBIES thread for 'what happens when').

[dale13]

Hi All, I called the court today who have just informed me that CE will proceed further with this. A view on my defence below.
A letter is in the post for me to respond back.

I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under 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.


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

1. The Claim Form issued on the ******** by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was neither a valid statement of truth, nor signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited”.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim do not disclose any cause of action or details that can enable me to defend the case. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

3. I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident, and therefore the Claimant’s case must be against me as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). 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.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. The original Letter before Action demanded a lower sum, and there is a reasonable belief that subsequent charges were not incurred and were added to inflate the claim. The Particulars of Claim were prepared by CEL’s own staff and not a legal representative, so it is simply not true that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. The amount is therefore false.

Further, CEL has failed to mitigate its costs.

POFA 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) 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 £236.00 for outstanding debt and damages.

5. No standing:

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.

6. No legitimate interest:

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.

7. If this claim 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.

8. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

CEL suggests that Beavis sets a precedent. This is only true if the facts of the case are similar. In this case, none of the exceptions to disengage the penalty apply.

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.