Civil Enforcement Court papers, Private shopping park Options

[kemanan]

Hi All,

Complete newbie on here but have spent the week reading this forum.

I am defending 3 separate claims,

1) Wickes Car park - Letter to store manager so have a good feeling on this one as we were at the store and have proof of quote in the kitchen dept.
They are looking in to it

2) Daughter forgot to pay in Railway carpark Apcoa Parking now at ZZPS stage £155 ANPR in use I will defend for her separately.

Third and main one help needed in defense is Wife parked in Free for two hours and then overstayed for 20 to 35 mins more.
Have ignore all letters and even had a Final reminder before lagal action, but that was back in March this year and nothing til now from a near blank sheet
and now have a County court Northampton business centre form. Have stated will defend and have already gone online last Friday26th October 2018.
So have time to put in defense.

Was thinking of four members of our family have access to this car but cant remember who was driving or go along with unclear signs etc.

Any advice appreciated

[Advertisement]

[Redivi]

Use the box in the top right corner to search for CEL claims

You will find plenty of example defences but don't use anything before 2018

The identity of the driver and poor signs are only two of the many defence points

To our knowledge, CEL has never let a properly defended claim get as far as a hearing
For some reason they don't want a judge asking questions about all the fake extra charges

[kemanan]

I have put this defense together, can someone have a look and see if ok




In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: -------

DEFENCE Between: Civil Enforcement Limited v ---------

I am ====, the defendant in this matter and 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 17/10/2018 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 defense 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 defense. 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 Defense 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 defense.


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 £325.79 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.
The defendant right to claim costs from the claimant may be necessary.

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.

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 17/10/2018.

(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

[SchoolRunMum]

I am defending 3 separate claims,

No you aren't, only one.

1) Wickes Car park - Letter to store manager so have a good feeling on this one as we were at the store and have proof of quote in the kitchen dept.
They are looking in to it

G24? They never sue, and yes, Wickes can cancel it so give them a shove.

2) Daughter forgot to pay in Railway carpark Apcoa Parking now at ZZPS stage £155 ANPR in use I will defend for her separately.

No you won't. APCOA never sue but how disappointing to have such a wasted opportunity, APCOA were 100% WINNABLE at POPLA...

...and so were CEL!!

Third and main one help needed in defence is Wife parked in Free for two hours and then overstayed for 20 to 35 mins more.
Have ignore all letters and even had a Final reminder before lagal action, but that was back in March this year and nothing til now from a near blank sheet
and now have a County court Northampton business centre form. Have stated will defend and have already gone online last Friday26th October 2018.
So have time to put in defence.

Please first and foremost tell your family to stop ignoring these and learn how to see them off at appeal stage where it's a BPA member (APCOA and CEL).

Soooo easy. Yet you ignored them all and let them drift on, and CEL try claims as you have now discovered.

I currently reside at ----------

Not needed, and you copied an old template. Read newer ones, as that one isn't good. There are new defences v CEL most days on here and on MSE Forum.

[kemanan]

Wickes came back "Sorry cant do anything as has gone to dept recovery"

Nice earner for them if they can get away with £325

[ManxRed]

Wickes came back "Sorry cant do anything as has gone to dept recovery"

Bollocks. What's stopping them exactly?

Contact the CEO.

[SchoolRunMum]

Nice earner for them if they can get away with £325

Luckily, they can't. And surely the Wickes one is G24 who never sue? You never said which PPC the Wickes one is, and they can't demand £325!

CEL is the only claim you have and are likely to have and that will be won, I predict.

[kemanan]

Email sent to the CEO Wickes,,,, upt the anti have increased the annoyance of dept collection notices and harassment after an afternoon in their company
discussing business with them..
UKPC are the ones here.


Have drafted a different defence and invite any comments most welcome (Re CEL) We cant remember who was driving and not sure
how to deal with this one?


Have square eyes reading these this week

[SchoolRunMum]

OK show us the new CEL defence draft. I've written at least two on MSE forum v CEL this month, if you want to look at them (I post as Coupon-mad there).

[kemanan]

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: -----

DEFENCE Between: Civil Enforcement Limited v ---

I am , the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle G------. I reside at ---------------------

I deny I am liable for the entirety of this claim for each of the following reasons:

The Claim Form issued on the 17 October 2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by the claimants employee.

1).The notice to keeper that the claimant issues are not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, sch 4 and therefore there is no keeper liability. Only the driver is liable.

a). I was not the driver for the event.

b). There is therefore no cause of action against me and no contract on my behalf

2) This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
© 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.

3) The claimant has not 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.

4) There can be no 'presumption' by the claimant that the keeper was the driver. Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained; there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver.

5) This case can be distinguished from Parking eye 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) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) Non-existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
© It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

7) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
© there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

8) 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.

9) No legitimate interest. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages only the true landowner could pursue.

10) 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.

11) The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirms that the penalty rule is still 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.
There is no commercial gain by the claimant as their services are free and only gain financially by issuing inflated invoices to the public.


12) The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge from multiple dept collectors to increase the charge and the particulars of claim dated 17 October2018 are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.
The defendant may claim costs incurred against the claimant in the county court which may be more than the amount claimed should it become necessary.

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 17 October 2018

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 believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Signed:



Date:

[kemanan]

Wickes looking into again- maybe hope after all

[kemanan]

RESULT RESULT !!!!!!!!

Wickes emailed back will be raising a cheque for £150 to pay DRP plus a £50 voucher for in-store. Very apologetic as they did
not take our reg details while we were with them...

They can only stop pre Dept recovery


WELL DONE WICKES

One down and 2 to go CEL and APCOA

Need help with those too please

[ManxRed]

RESULT RESULT !!!!!!!!

Wickes emailed back will be raising a cheque for £150 to pay DRP plus a £50 voucher for in-store. Very apologetic as they did
not take our reg details while we were with them...

They can only stop pre Dept recovery


WELL DONE WICKES

One down and 2 to go CEL and APCOA

Need help with those too please

Well, a win's a win, so well done. Even if it looks like Wickes have signed some ridiculous contract they never should have agreed to in the first place, which allows the contractor to tell the principal what they can and can't do with regard to their own customers!

[kemanan]

Not sure about the CEL case seams everyone goes on the signs. Can anybody read through and see the defence I have come up with.

[Redivi]

RESULT RESULT !!!!!!!!

Wickes emailed back will be raising a cheque for £150 to pay DRP plus a £50 voucher for in-store. Very apologetic as they did
not take our reg details while we were with them...

They can only stop pre Dept recovery

WELL DONE WICKES

Difficult to imagine a more stupid course of action by Wickes

Several years ago, CEL lost its contract with the Co-op
(In fact it never had one but that's a separate issue)

Its reaction was to issue claims against hundreds of Co-op customers for parking events going back several years
When the customers complained, the Co-op paid the claims

As a result, CEL promptly issued claims against thousands more customers
They also issued claims against hundreds of Co-op staff

Vaguely recall that there was going to be a key court case but don't recall an outcome
Would not be at all surprised to learn that the Co-op p[aid the Danegeld

[kemanan]

Claim form from Northampton is dated 17 October 2018 and I have replied to service and left defence blank on 23/10/2018
What happens next ??? do I defend now

Not sure if I am waiting from cliament anything in post???

Help

[ostell]

The claim is still active, you have to defend. What you needed really what a note from Wickes saying that they have requested that their agen cancel any charge.

[kemanan]

Hi and thanks for your reply but this one is from CEL I should of posted separate tread on here, as have three cases (Family members)


MCOL says defence pack password , where do I get that from??

[ostell]

I'm confused with what case is what, yes it would help if you had a seperate thread for each case.

The court process will continue on like a steam roller. You have to send in a defence by day 33 after issue otherwise they win by default. The password is on the claim form, Have you really been reading other threads. It will only stop if the claimant withdraws it.

If it's the Wickes case in court then you offer the solicitor the amount that Wickes have given you and ask them to withdraw the case, and send a letter to the court cancelling.

[Redivi]

How have you managed to acknowledge service without the password ?

Never use Moneyclaim online to submit the defence
It doesn't have enough space and messes up the formatting

Does the CEL claim say that they will send Further Particulars ?
If so, they will be a template right down to the scanned signature that will say nothing about what the driver did
If you're lucky they may have an additional Schedule of Information but don't count on it

If/when they arrive, record the date and keep the envelope
CEL has form for sending them a few days after they're dated
It increases their chances that defendants miss deadlines and hand them default judgment

You will not receive any other communication before you must submit your defence
You wouldn't be the first OP that waited for a reply to the AOS and lost the case as a result