CEL Parking Defence, Sending off imminently and require advice Options

[Cockers]

Hello,

I'm defending a claim by CEL for the first time. I've put together this defence and wonder if members could have a read and advise. I've read through posts so picked some of these points out.

Their claim was the defendant overstayed the 45mins free parking breaking T&Cs

Am I missing something important to add? Is there anything I should leave out. I've made 15 points.

1. The initial PCN was received on 28/11/2017 and was a “Final Reminder”. There was no information of where the alleged offence had taken place or what time. The letter is threatening and demands monies. It is not clear who the letter is from other than to send £100 to Civil Enforcement (Creditor). The defendant was sceptical to contact the claimant due to the dubious and incomplete content and considered this to be a probable scam.

2. The second letter received was 77 days later (13th February) from a company called ZZPS who purported to be acting on behalf of Civil Enforcement Ltd. They demanded £200 stating the parking charge as being £140 with admin charge of £60. This letter also appeared to the defendant to be a scam. Researching these companies revealed they were connected along with QDR solicitors and are linked and a serial litigant. The defendant visited the site of the alleged event and determined that although the alleged offence had occurred four months earlier thus making it difficult to recall whereabouts that they have never parked in this car park ever.

3. In total the defendant has received six letters demanding money for an alleged offence not attributable to the defendant. None of the letters hold a valid signature on behalf of the company they represent or a position of office. The Final Reminder from CEL holds no signature; the two letters from ZZPS are signed “Customer Services”; the two letters from QDR solicitors are signed “QDR Solicitors”; and the final letter from CEL has a mark but no identifiable name or title.

4. The Claim form issued on the 18th June 2018 is not correctly filed under the Practice Direction as it does not have a valid signature. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement be signed by a person holding senior position and to state the position.

5. The Claimant and representatives have added unrecoverable charges to the original charge. These increments are not credible of a serial litigant using templates. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

6. Given the Claimant’s and their representatives unprofessional, aggressive and threatening nature of the letters received, the unrealistic increments for administration costs and the incomplete information sent by CEL in their initial letter to the defendant, the defendant having not entered into a contract with the claimant has cautiously not contacted the claimant in fear of being scammed.

7. The Defendant has never parked, waited or dropped off at the car park on the date shown or at any other date in this vehicle or any other

8. The Claimant is not the land-holder and, in the absence of written authority from the land-holder in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Para 7.2, “If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.”, has no legal capacity to bring the claim. If the display of signs was sufficient, the BPA would have had no need to include this condition in its Code of Practice.

9. Data protection Information was not available at the car park at the time of the alleged offence. The defendant did not consent to having their data shared by the DVLA to the claimant not having entered into a contract with the claimant.

10. The Defendant denies that the vehicle was parked for four hours as alleged by the Claimant. Although the Defendant refutes the claim and has no knowledge of the alleged offence, and given the passage of time is unable to provide with accuracy the vehicle’s exact whereabouts, the Defendant suggests the Claimant's ANPR system was either defective or has failed to record that the Defendant's vehicle could have made two or multiple visits over a four hour period, leaving and returning via an alternative entry/ exit point to the North East corner. (Appendix 1)

11. As a result, the Claimant accessed the Defendant's details on the DVLA database without reasonable cause.

12. The claimant has not provided particulars to allow the defendant to provide a reasonable defence having not stated clearly within their letters what the charge is for.

13. According to BPA CoP Paragraph 18.7 “You should display the BPA’s AOS logos at all sites. This will help the public to see that you are a legitimate operator, and show that the site is run properly”. CEL do not display this information on their signage at this location (Appendix 2)

14. According to BPA CoP Paragraph 18.3 “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see” and Appendix B Page 29 under Contrast and Illumination “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.” At the time of the alleged offence there was inadequate signage and illumination. The alleged offence is claimed to have happened on the evening of October 14th.

15. To date signage is not illuminated at strategic points and easily missed. (Appendix 3: A recent picture taken on the evening of 17th July with visibility still good)

[Advertisement]

[Redivi]

Your defence is confusing and the points are in the wrong order

Para 7 and Para 10 contradict each other unless you're trying to say that somebody else had the car and that person didn't park for four hours

Paras 1 to 3 read like a witness statement and the last sentence in Para 2 doesn't fit

Paras 6 and 9 are irrelevant

You don't include evidence such as photos with a defence statement

A more logical order is :

1 The Statement of Truth isn't signed and the claim must be struck out
2 The Particulars of Claim disclose no cause of action
3 CEL is not the land-owner and has no capacity to bring the claim unless its contract grants it
4 You have never visited the car park other than after receiving the claim to inspect the car park
5 CEL failed to meet conditions of POFA to recover payment from registered keeper - it failed to serve a PCN within 14 days
6 The vehicle did not stay for 4 hrs and the ANPR is defective
7 Even if the vehicle had stayed, the signs fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice
8 CEL did not pay ZZPS £60
9 CEL did not pay QDR £36. QDR was appointed by ZZPS and CEL is a stranger to any contract
10 CEL failed to issue a claim following its Letter Before Claim for £140 and has failed to mitigate its costs
11 Even if CEL had paid these sums and met the conditions of POFA, the max it can claim from keeper is original PCN and additional charges are none of your concern
12 CEL own staff issued the claim and the Legal Representative fee is false

Look for examples of defences in other threads
Ignore examples before 2018

[Cockers]

Thank you Redivi. Much appreciated. I've reordered as suggested and fluffed out. Does it look ok?
I'll go and read further defences as suggested and will share any additions.
I was told by the court I have 33 days from 18th June to submit which would mean Friday is the last day. I'd be best sending by email now to ensure it gets there on time. I have their email as ccbc@hmctf.gfi.gov.uk



1. The Claim form issued on the 18th June 2018 is not correctly filed under the Practice Direction as it does not have a valid signature. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement be signed by a person holding senior position and to state the position. The Statement of Truth isn't signed and the claim must be struck out.

2. The Particulars of Claim discloses no cause of action. The claimant has not provided particulars to allow the defendant to provide a reasonable defence having not stated clearly within their letters what the charge is for.


3. CEL is not the land-owner and has no capacity to bring the claim unless its contract grants it. In the absence of written authority from the land-holder in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Para 7.2, “If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.”, has no legal capacity to bring the claim. If the display of signs was sufficient, the BPA would have had no need to include this condition in its Code of Practice.

4. The Defendant has never parked, waited or dropped off at the car park on the date shown or at any other date in this or any other vehicle and has only ever visited after receiving the claim to inspect the car park.


5. CEL failed to meet conditions of POFA to recover payment from the registered keeper as it failed to serve a PCN within 14 days. The initial PCN was received on 28/11/2017 and was a “Final Reminder Before Action” letter with the alleged incident dated 14/10/2017. There was no information of where the alleged offence had taken place or what time. The letter demands £100 to Civil Enforcement (Creditor). The defendant was sceptical to contact the claimant due to the dubious and incomplete content and considered this to be a probable scam.

6. The vehicle did not stay for 4 hrs and the ANPR is either defective or fails to monitor an alternative entry/exit point at the car park.

7. Even if the vehicle had stayed, the signs fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. According to BPA CoP Paragraph 18.7 “You should display the BPA’s AOS logos at all sites. This will help the public to see that you are a legitimate operator, and show that the site is run properly”. CEL do not display this information on their signage at this location.

8. CEL did not pay ZZPS £60 for admin charges. These additional charges are not credible of a serial litigant using templates. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.


9. CEL did not pay QDR £36 for admin charges. QDR was appointed by ZZPS and CEL is a stranger to any contract.


10. CEL failed to issue a claim for £140 following its Letter Before Action (28/11/2017) for £100 and has failed to mitigate its costs. The second letter the defendant received was 77 days later (13th February) from ZZPS demanding £200 stating the parking charge was now £140 with no explanation for the increase.


11. Even if CEL had paid these admin charges and met the conditions of POFA, the maximum charge it can claim from the keeper is the original PCN.


12. In the statement of fact, CEL’s own staff issued the claim and the Legal Representative fee is false.

[nosferatu1001]

If you are sending by email, ensure you print, sign,s can to PDF and email. Cannot stress enough, it MUST be signed

As you should be aware, CEL routinely discontinues claims that are defended with forum help, but it doesnt mean they wont change their minds this time!

[Redivi]

Tidied up a bit for you

Check the email address because I think it's ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Scanning whole pages can be a bit memory hungry
I advise clients to scan a signature into a Word document and then convert to pdf

1. The Claim form issued on the 18th June 2018 is not correctly filed under the Practice Direction as it does not have a valid signature. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement be signed by a person holding senior position and to state the position. The Statement of Truth isn't signed and the claim must be struck out.

2. The Particulars of Claim discloses no cause of action. The claimant has not provided particulars to allow the defendant to provide a reasonable defence having not stated clearly within their letters what the charge is for.


3. The Claimant is not the land-owner and has no capacity to bring the claim unless its contract grants it. In the absence of written authority from the land-holder in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Para 7.2, “If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.”, has no legal capacity to bring the claim. If the display of signs was sufficient, the BPA would have had no need to include this condition in its Code of Practice.

4. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. He has never parked, waited or dropped off at the car park on the date shown or at any other date in this or any other vehicle.
He has only ever visited to inspect the car park after receiving the claim.


5. The Claimant failed to meet conditions of the Protection of Freedoms Act to recover payment from the registered keeper as it failed to serve a PCN within 14 days. The initial PCN was received on 28/11/2017 and was a “Final Reminder Before Action” letter with the alleged incident dated 14/10/2017. There was no information of where the alleged offence had taken place or what time. The letter demands £100 to Civil Enforcement (Creditor). The defendant was sceptical to contact the claimant due to the dubious and incomplete content and considered this to be a probable scam.

6. The vehicle did not stay for 4 hrs and the ANPR was defective. It has failed to correctly record multiple visits. The Defendant is aware that the driver did not always arrive and leave via the same entrance.

7. Even if the vehicle had been present for the time alleged, the signs fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice Paragraph 18.3. The signs are mounted very high and any mention of the charge is in small inconspicuous text in a paragraph at the bottom of the sign. The Defendant also notes that the signs are in breach of Para 18.7 regarding the display of the BPA

8. The Claimant has added charges for a debt collector (ZZPS) and a solicitor (QDR). The Defendant disputes that either of these charges were incurred. The Defendant is incredulous that the Claimant paid ZZPS £60 to collect a disputed £100 charge, whether or not it was successful.

9. The Claimant did not pay QDR £36 for admin charges. QDR stated in its letter that it was appointed by ZZPS. The Claimant is a stranger to any contract.
Even if the Claimant had appointed QDR, CPR 27.14 does not permit legal charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

10. CEL failed to issue a claim for £140 following its Letter Before Action (28/11/2017) and has failed to mitigate its costs. The second letter the defendant received was 77 days later (13th February) from ZZPS demanding £200.
The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the transfer to ZZPS had no purpose other than to artificially inflate the demand.

11. Even if CEL had paid these admin charges and had met the conditions of POFA, it cannot recover them from the Defendant
POFA 4(5) states that the maximum sum that can be recovered is the amount specified on the Parking Notice

12. In the statement of fact, the Claimant's own staff issued the claim not a named solicitor. The Legal Representative fee is therefore unfounded

I believe the facts in this Statement are true

This post has been edited by Redivi: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 08:51

[nosferatu1001]

Redivi - the ccbacq adress is the current one. Theyve changed it again, and still havent updated paperwork!

[Redivi]

Isn't it ccbcaq ?

It was the f for s typos in hmctf.gfi that I spotted but you're right that I should have looked up the full address

Weren't we on a group email recently that messages to ccbc would be forwarded for a while ?

[nosferatu1001]

Indeed, CCBCAQ!

Indeed, but we dont know for how long, and given the competence they have displayed, I would not trust any mail alias to work correctly.

[Cockers]

Thank you so much guys.

I'll submit.

I'm sending to ccbc@hmcts.gfi.gov.uk as that was the automated message. I'll also send to ccbcaq@hmcts.gfi.gov.uk

Please let me know if this is incorrect.

Thanks once again, your time is much appreciated. I will keep you updated with my progress.

Cheers

[Redivi]

It's gSi

[Cockers]

Yes it is It took a couple tries and a quick google search

Thanks again

[Cockers]

Have received a Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track.

CEL are defending the claim and filed a defence of which was not enclosed. It states it is suitable for allocation to the small claims track.

It asks if I believe if it is not the appropriate track for the claim (C1)
It asks that I complete the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (N180)

I can't see how agreeing to mediation will make any difference.

[nosferatu1001]

It doesnt say CEL are defending the claim, it says this is now a defended claim...
They dont send yo uthe defence, they send the same form to CEL

The small claims track is of course appropriate, and mediation is useless.

[Cockers]

Ok so I say no I do not agree to referral to mediation but Yes I agree that the small claims track is appropriate?

Thanks.

[nosferatu1001]

Why do you need to ask that?
I already answered it.

[Cockers]

A couple days ago I received a letter to say they were no longer going to pursue this. Thanks for all the advice.

[Redivi]

Having cost you a lot of time and stress defending the claim, about 70% of which was composed of fake charges
Having cost them £15 to issue the claim by their automated process

Well done for sticking it out

Enough people cave in to make the business model very worthwhile
Unfortunately caving in and default judgments result in official court statistics that show their success rate to be about 80%

Reporting them for abuse of the court process will never succeed
As far as the court is concerned the figures show that the vast majority of claims are justified