Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Claim form from Civil Enforcement Ltd
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
jano1
Hello, I have received a claim form from Civil enforcement ltd for "overstaying in a 3 hour maximum free stay car park." the over stay suggested was around 10 minutes due to the driver being held up at the till in the final shop visited in the retail park.
I received a letter asking for payment but that was ignored as I had read to do, and thought the 10 minutes would be let off as a grace period but no a claim form came through today. £225 + fees for an over stay of 10 minutes in a car park that is free. Where is the logic there.

Anyway I read on the Parking Cowboys website to make a post here so hopefully someone can shed light on if/how I have any chance of fighting this still.

Thank you for any help and if you need anymore information let me know.
Gan
Civil Enforcement has just launched one of its claims blizzards in time for the summer holidays

This is a low cost debt collection tactic with no intention to let a judge see them
If a claim is defended, CEL backs down

The last blizzard was in early April so read some of the threads from this time for example defences

Meanwhile, send the acknowledgement of service to give yourself an extra two weeks to write the defence
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (jano1 @ Wed, 14 Jun 2017 - 18:18) *
Hello, I have received a claim form from Civil enforcement ltd for "overstaying in a 3 hour maximum free stay car park." I believe I over stayed by about 10 minutes due to being held up at the till in the final shop I visited in the retail park.
At the time I received a letter asking for payment but I ignored it as I had read to do, and I thought the 10 minutes would be let off as a grace period but no the claim form came through today. £225 + fees for an over stay of 10 minutes in a car park that is free. Where is the logic there.


Do the AOS first, then look at any other CEL defence/claim here and copy the defence, as log as it was written in 2017. Show us your draft.

At the time of writing this, all well-defended cases are discontinued, and have been for over a year on good parking fightback forums (here and MSE).
SchoolRunMum
sorry duplicate post
nosferatu1001
Do the AOS online

Do NOT write anything at all in the defence box. NOTHING.
jano1
Thanks guys. I did the AOS online and definitely did not put anything in the defence box. I think I have binned the letter with the ANPR images on it so is it too cheeky to email CEL asking for them? would that be freedom of information? Also I have contacted the DVLA to find out when my information was accessed as I have seen lots of cases of them being accessed well outside of the 14 day limit.
nosferatu1001
Instead of doing that, get your defence together. Use 2017 CEL defences - LOADS online - that ATTACK the random extra fees added by CEL. They will not want to explain these so it results in a stayed case that never gets unstayed.

If you want copies of docs, easiest is to write to them under CPR31.14 requesting a copy of all documetns they state they have sent to you. Give them 14 days to respond.
jano1
So I have some time to start putting a defence together. I just wanted to add some more info. Here's the particulars of claim that came today. Its not letting me add pictures for some reason but the short story is they are claiming the overstay way 16 minutes and 6 seconds. I'm thinking of pushing the reasonable grace period which should be allowed according to the BPA of which CEL is a member. Also there is no mention of the original claim amount.

Then I will push hard on the signage as the signs had tiny text under the FREE PARKING sign and the signs are above head height at at least 8ft. I don't have pictures of this but its clear from google streetview.

This is what I found from the BPA and I am reading though as many of the recent defences as I can that are similar to my case. So thank you all for your help!

From BPA Ive read that an "observation period" of 10 minutes and a "grace period" of 10 minutes should be observed by its members.
Jlc
QUOTE (jano1 @ Thu, 15 Jun 2017 - 09:56) *
would that be freedom of information?

No, the freedom of information act doesn't apply to private companies. Possibly a Subject Access Request (SAR) under the Data Protection Act but could cost up to £10 - or simply asking them but don't expect them to be helpful.

QUOTE (jano1 @ Thu, 15 Jun 2017 - 09:56) *
Also I have contacted the DVLA to find out when my information was accessed as I have seen lots of cases of them being accessed well outside of the 14 day limit.

That 'limit' is only relevant if they are seeking keeper liability, which they didn't at the time. (They are sometimes trying miserably now)

But any reasonable defence will see them fold - they are seeking payers and defaulters.
jano1
Ok I shrunk the images to make them up-loadable. You can see in their summary of terms "if you do not agree to these terms you agree to pay our charge" with no mention of what that charge is.

If anyone can recccomend similar cases to mine with a defence I can read through I would greatly appreciate pointing me in the right direction. at the minute I searched "Civil Enforcement Defence" in the key words and am reading through ones from April this year.
Gan
You don't need to find a similar case because Civil Enforcement particulars are identical for every claim
So are the defences

What the driver actually did is almost irrelevant and only mentioned in a defence if he didn't do what he's accused of

Disabled bay allegations are rare with CEL because they use ANPR and nearly all their income results from overstays or registration number mistakes
They don't usually have feet on the ground to check disabled bays
jano1
Thanks for that, I was wondering why I hadnt really seen people arguing the specifics. I was sure the 16 minutes would be a factor but I guess not. Would you say it is important to counter their Beavis reference?
Gan
16 minutes merits the defence points that the vehicle was not in a parking space for that time, the signs fail to say that CEL uses this unusual definition of the stay and that it's failed to follow the British Parking Association Code of Practice regarding grace periods at the beginning and end of parking

The defences in the other threads will have the counter to Beavis
jano1
So this is the custom "16 minutes is daft" paragraph. The rest will be coming from one of the standard defences once I find one I like.

The claimant lists in its particulars of claim (paragraph 2.)that "the Claimant uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition ("ANPR") cameras at the entrance and exit of the car park, which identify time of arrival and departure of vehicles from the car park". I put the claimant to proof the period of time for which the vehicle was actually parked. The claim in question is for allegedly "exceeding parking allowance" this claim requires that the vehicle was actually parked and not just on the land in question, so proof of the period for which the car was parked within a marked bay is required, not just within the car park.

The BPA recently added extra guidelines for a situation such as this, stating that “An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or park their car". This is from the BPA website.

Also they add that a grace period (a period after the time allowance has expired) must be observed by its members of which CEL is. The minimum grace period set by the BPA is 10 minutes.

jano1
Also received confirmation from the DVLA that the Date of the offence was 11/09/2016 but CEL made an enquiry on 04/10/2016 which is 23 days after the event. Am I right in thinking they only have 14 days after the event to Enquire with the DVLA? or is this old information?
Jlc
QUOTE (jano1 @ Thu, 22 Jun 2017 - 12:26) *
Also received confirmation from the DVLA that the Date of the offence was 11/09/2016 but CEL made an enquiry on 04/10/2016 which is 23 days after the event. Am I right in thinking they only have 14 days after the event to Enquire with the DVLA? or is this old information?

The 14 days is only in regards to keeper liability. They can get details later but cannot pursue the keeper regardless of whether they were driving or not. (As I said in post #9)

They can only pursue the keeper under the basis they were driving.

The defence can assert their lack of PoFA compliance. (They'll discontinue anyway)
jano1
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 22 Jun 2017 - 12:43) *
QUOTE (jano1 @ Thu, 22 Jun 2017 - 12:26) *
Also received confirmation from the DVLA that the Date of the offence was 11/09/2016 but CEL made an enquiry on 04/10/2016 which is 23 days after the event. Am I right in thinking they only have 14 days after the event to Enquire with the DVLA? or is this old information?

The 14 days is only in regards to keeper liability. They can get details later but cannot pursue the keeper regardless of whether they were driving or not. (As I said in post #9)

They can only pursue the keeper under the basis they were driving.

The defence can assert their lack of PoFA compliance. (They'll discontinue anyway)



So i definitely never received any attempt by CEL to ascertain who the driver was. Simply a notice to keeper.
jano1
Hello, Took a while but I have put together my first draft defence. If any one has criticism or comment I would appreciate it. I have basically put together anything that applied plus a little bit of specifics. If I've gone on too much let me know or if I have missed key points. Thanks!

I am the Defendant, xxxxx, DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at xxxxxxxxx
I deny each and every claim set out in the Claimants Particulars of Claim, for the following reasons. Each of which alone is good cause to throw out the claim.
1. The claimant fails to meet pre-court procedural outlines.
(a) The claim form 'Statement of Truth' is not signed. In the signature box is simply the name of the Claimant Civil Enforcement Ltd. Under this is (Claimants legal representative) if a legal representative did sign the form then the signature and name must be that of the legal person and not that of the company. CPR Practice direction 22, (3.9-3.10). This is a clear breach of procedure which deems any information contained in the Claim Form as non truth since it fails to have been signed by a legal representative of the company to confirm truth. I therefore invite the court to immediately throw out this claim for flagrant disregard for court procedure.
(b) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’.
2. There is no outlined cause for action.
(a) 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. Nor does it contain the supposed initial 'charge' amount nor the reason this charge arose. The Defendant invites the court to use its case management powers to strike out the case as having disclosed no cause of action.
(b) The Particulars of claim 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 Claimants own summary of their signage content contains no mention of an amount that would be charged in the event of a breach of so called contract (it is denied that a contract was formed in this situation.), in clear breach of BPA regulations (of which the Claimant is a member.) and lacking the detail needed to be successful in court.
(c.) The Claim does not meet the requirements of CPR 16. The particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). Neither are they compliant with practice direction 16 7.5.
(d) The claim also has no description of why the claim is presented. Merely quoting a reference number of which of which the defendant has no knowledge.

3. I put the claimant to strict proof that the amounts claimed for have indeed been paid to the respective companies mentioned.
(a) It is my belief that supposed Legal Representitive's cost is bogus due to the nature of the Company. The Claim form is “signed” by ‘Civil Enforcement Limited’ and not the Claimant’s Legal Representative therefore the Legal Representative Fee is false
(b) The claimant is claiming interest at 8% Should the court find for the claimant I respectfully ask that the interest claimed is reduced. Firstly the claimant has waited a significant amount of time to lodge a claim which has the effect of vastly inflating the cost and secondly, this period has seen historically low interest rates and 8% would appear to reward the claimant rather than compensate. The amount is also miscalculated. The claimant is put to proof thereof.
(c.) It is believed that the claim is passed between debt collection agencies and solicitors merely to inflate the amount of the claim. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the agencies used were in fact paid the amounts mentioned.
The solicitor Wright Hassall was engaged by ZZPS not Civil Enforcement Limited, therefore legal costs cannot be recovered.

4. (a) Paragraph 1 is outside the defendant's knowledge. 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. The claimant is put to strict proof that they in fact have a valid interest in the land and are allowed to operate upon it. This distinguishes the case from the Beavis case.
(b) 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, it is the onus of the land owner to bring a claim.
5. The defendant has no idea as to the original claim amount, nor the alleged offence, due to its absence on the Particulars of Claim, Claim Form and any signage they provided. I am therefore forced to assume the amount was for £100 and that the alleged offence was over staying in the car park by 16 minutes and 6 seconds. It is my belief that nobody would accept a contract where they were charged £100 for staying in a free to stay car park for 16 minutes. Therefore no contract to pay this amount was formed or even considered.
(a) The BPA enforces a mandatory grace period a minimum of 10 minutes. The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place. They also enforce an Observation Period which is "a period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or park" no time is specified but 10 minutes is also understood to be customary.
The defendant is therefore put to strict proof that it followed the guidelines of the BPA as the alleged overstay is within the Observation and Grace Periods enforced by the BPA.
(b) It is believed that the amount claimed is not a legitimate estimate of loss but rather a punitive and unlawful fine for exhibiting behaviour which the Claimant wishes to discourage as in Civil Enforcement Limited Vs McCafferty. The claim amount is clearly an attempted deterrent. The Claimant is put to strict proof of how they were put at a loss of £100 in a 16 minute period. It is also believed that the inflated amounts given are further punishments for not adhering to their time scale. The Claimant is put to proof that the additional fees have in fact been paid to the relevant parties.
6. No contract was formed. This distinguishes the case from Beavis, where both parties accepted that a contract was in place due to the unusually clear and abundant signage. This is not the case here so it is denied that any contract was formed.
(a) Paragraph 3 is denied. The signage used by Civil Enforcement ltd was not “large prominent and legible” as the Supreme court found in ParkingEye v Beavis, where both parties agreed that a contract was formed. Excel parking services ltd v Cutts also shows that in order to create a contract between the driver and Civil Enforcement Ltd there must be clear and legible signs. There can be no contract between the driver and Civil Enforcement Ltd without a clear offer, consideration and acceptance. It is believed the charge was not even mentioned in the small print as it is not presented in the Claimants schedule of information Summary of Terms Thus the signs do not meet legal requirements.
(b) It is also the defendants belief from images gained that the signs are at least 7ft from ground level to the lowest point of the sign. Put this height together with small print that would be uncomfortable to read anyway makes it utterly impossible to read anything but "Free Parking" on the sign, no terms and conditions can be made out. It is also believed that the signs were unlit and dirty from being unkept. The Claimant is put to proof that their signs are frequent, obvious and legible to BPA and legal guidelines.
(c.) It is the defendants belief that there is no planning permission in place on the land in question for signage or the ANPR system in use by the Claimant. The claimant is put to strict proof that they followed all legal requirements by the local council at the time of installation.
(d) No fee was paid. The alleged incident took place in a free to park car park. Therefore there was no thought given by the driver (who's identity is unknown) as to a contract being formed.
7. The Claimant failed to identify or even attempt to identify the identity of the driver at the time of the incident.
(a) I confirm that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged offence. However I can neither confirm nor deny who the driver was at the time due to the age of this event.
(b) Using ANPR technology there is no possible way of identifying the driver of a vehicle. It is my belief that the Claimant did not attempt to ascertain the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged event from the keeper. The defendant received no 'notice to driver' or attempt to identify the driver and have them reported within the 28 day allowable period. The Claimant instead issued a 'notice to keeper'. A notice to keeper must be issued within 14 days of the alleged offence date as identified by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph 9(4)(b)-(5) The notice to keeper was not received until after 28 days. Further to this The defendant has proof that the Claimant did not even contact the DVLA to access keeper details until 23 days after the date of the alleged incident. Thus the claimant must have contravened the Protection of freedoms act above, The claim should therefore be immediately struck out.
The defendant is put to strict proof otherwise.

8. The Defendant therefore invites the court to strike out this poorly put together claim by a serial litigant, Who fail to issue a valid statement of truth. Who fails to disclose cause of action, order particulars which comply with Practice Directions and do not have planning permission for the erection of ANPR technology or signage.

Statement of truth.
I believe that this statement to the best of my knowledge is truth.
Signed: Dated:
SchoolRunMum
Looks good. I did wonder how you would explain that you assumed all this though, if you had no idea of details, where are you getting the details:

QUOTE
5. The defendant has no idea as to the original claim amount, nor the alleged offence, due to its absence on the Particulars of Claim, Claim Form and any signage they provided. I am therefore forced to assume the amount was for £100 and that the alleged offence was over staying in the car park by 16 minutes and 6 seconds. It is my belief that nobody would accept a contract where they were charged £100 for staying in a free to stay car park for 16 minutes. Therefore no contract to pay this amount was formed or even considered.
jano1
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 29 Jun 2017 - 23:27) *
Looks good. I did wonder how you would explain that you assumed all this though, if you had no idea of details, where are you getting the details:

QUOTE
5. The defendant has no idea as to the original claim amount, nor the alleged offence, due to its absence on the Particulars of Claim, Claim Form and any signage they provided. I am therefore forced to assume the amount was for £100 and that the alleged offence was over staying in the car park by 16 minutes and 6 seconds. It is my belief that nobody would accept a contract where they were charged £100 for staying in a free to stay car park for 16 minutes. Therefore no contract to pay this amount was formed or even considered.




Thanks. And I found a defence from someone who parked in the exact same car park within a reasonable period of time to this claim (I don't think the price would have changed) and they stated their charge was £100 but I dont think I can reference that. Do you think that should be removed or just left as "It is unknown what the charge was, due to the lack of any detail within the Claimants Particulars of Claim, Schedule of Information or indeed the claim form its self."

Here is a link to the claim from the same car park. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum...-Stoke-On-Trent
nosferatu1001
If you dont have details, dont pretend you do.
Gan
I would add a couple of points

The further particulars of claim are signed by Ashley Cohen
There is no description of his position or if he is even employed by the Claimant at all

No debt could possibly become due on the date stated in the particulars of claim
The parking notice was not issued until three weeks after this date and allowed a further four weeks to make a payment

The Claimant states that it only manages the car park and therefore has no legal capacity in this matter unless specifically authorised by the land-holder
In accordance with the Code of Practice Para 7.2 of the British Parking Association, of which it is a member, its contract must include the authority to take legal action on its own behalf
The Claimant is put to proof of the fact
The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant is not contracted directly with the land-holder and puts it to proof of the chain of authority

3c Even if the charges had been paid, the Claimant has failed to mitigate its costs. Before passing the account to these third parties it had issued a Letter of Claim for only £140 but failed to take the threatened action.

In Para 6, state that the signs fail to meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice Para 18.3 regarding legibility

Remove Para 4. Beavis has nothing to do with these points and identifies a template defence that you haven't understood

Remove the intro of Para 5 and 5b and just have a footnote at the bottom of the "signs" paragraph that the driver did not agree to pay £100 to perform the undisclosed action
Genuine pre-estimate of loss is a dead argument and, if raised, allows a judge to tick the Beavis box

Remove from paragraph 7 that CEL contravened POFA. It hasn't. Its contract with the DVLA allows it to request keeper details for up to six months (might be a year)

Remove the argument about interest rates. 8% is the statutory rate

I've got mixed feelings about 1a, 2a and 8 where emotion and opinions are creeping in.
I'd temper it by changing 2a to The defendant is aware that the Claimant is a serial litigant.. and adding a couple of new sentences at the start of Para 8

The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has issued the claim with no intention to pursue the matter to a hearing but with the intention to alarm the defendant into making a payment that is not owed. the claim is an abuse of the court process.

At the end of Para 8

If the court does not strike out the claim for these failures, the Defendant requests in the alternative that it orders the Claimant to file Particulars that comply with the practice directions and include at least the following
(a) Whether the claim has been brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(b) Whether keeper liability is claimed
© Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal
(d) If charges over and above the initial charge are claimed, the basis on which they are claimed
When these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to add to or amend his defence
jano1
Thanks guys, Ill get it edited tonight. I was trying to follow the ordering I found by Gan on another post. Ill try and remove anything that can be considered emotion or the guess work I did with the fee, Ill just refer to the inflated price and it being unknown due to their lack of clarification.
jano1
Is 7.(d) any good? I seem to remember the exchange of money being a big thing in the formation of a contract between 2 parties. But my wording doesn't seem very strong.
jano1
Ok so here's a quick edit. I deleted Para 4 and replaced it with Gan's suggestion. If I have removed anything that was actually useful please let me know. But I've also tried to re word some of it to me less personal.

I am the Defendant, xxxxx, DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at xxxxxxxxx
I deny each and every claim set out in the Claimants Particulars of Claim, for the following reasons. Each of which alone is good cause to throw out the claim.
1. The claimant fails to meet pre-court procedural outlines.
(a) The claim form 'Statement of Truth' is not signed. In the signature box is simply printed the name of the 'Claimant Civil Enforcement Ltd'. Under this it is stated the form was signed by 'Claimants legal representative'. If a legal representative did indeed sign the form then the signature and name must be that of the legal person signing the form and not that of the company which is being represented, CPR Practice direction 22, (3.9-3.10). This is a clear breach of procedure which deems any information contained in the Claim Form as non truth since it fails to meet the requirements of this legal process to confirm truth. The Defendant therefore invites the court to throw out this claim for disregard of court procedure.
Further to this the 'Particulars of Claim' are signed by Ashley Cohen
There is no description of his position or if he is even employed by the Claimant at all.
(b) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’.
2. There is no outlined cause for action.
(a) The defendant is aware that the Claimant is a 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. Nor does it contain the supposed initial 'charge' amount nor the reason this charge arose. The Defendant invites the court to use its case management powers to strike out the case as having disclosed no cause of action.
(b) The Particulars of claim 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 Claimants own summary of their signage content contains no mention of an amount that would be charged in the event of a breach of so called contract (it is denied that a contract was formed in this situation.), in clear breach of BPA regulations (of which the Claimant is a member.) and lacking the detail needed to be successful in court.
(c.) The Claim does not meet the requirements of CPR 16. The particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). Neither are they compliant with practice direction 16 7.5.
(d) The claim also has no description of why the claim is presented. Merely quoting a reference number of which of which the Defendant has no knowledge.
3. I put the Claimant to strict proof that the amounts claimed for have indeed been paid to the respective companies mentioned.
(a) It is the Defendant's belief that the supposed Legal Representative's cost is bogus due to the nature of the Company. The Claim form is “signed” by ‘Civil Enforcement Limited’ and not the Claimant’s Legal Representative therefore the Legal Representative Fee is false
(b) It is believed that the claim is passed between debt collection agencies and solicitors merely to inflate the amount of the claim. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the agencies used were in fact paid the amounts mentioned.
(c.) Even if the charges had been paid, the Claimant has failed to mitigate its costs. Before passing the account to these third parties it had issued a Letter of Claim for only £140 but failed to take the threatened action.
The solicitor Wright Hassall was engaged by ZZPS not Civil Enforcement Limited, therefore legal costs cannot be recovered.

4. (a) The claimant is put to proof of a genuine interest in the land on which it operates.
The Claimant states that it only manages the car park and therefore has no legal capacity in this matter unless specifically authorised by the land-holder
In accordance with the Code of Practice Para 7.2 of the British Parking Association, of which it is a member, its contract must include the authority to take legal action on its own behalf.
The Claimant is put to proof of the fact.
The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant is not contracted directly with the land-holder and puts it to proof of the chain of authority.
5. (a) The BPA enforces a mandatory grace period a minimum of 10 minutes. The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place. They also enforce an Observation Period which is "a period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or park" no time is specified but 10 minutes is also understood to be customary.
The defendant is therefore put to proof that it followed the guidelines of the BPA as the alleged overstay is within the Observation and Grace Periods enforced by the BPA.
6. (a) No debt could possibly become due on the date stated in the particulars of claim
The parking notice was not issued until three weeks after this date and allowed a further four weeks to make a payment
(b) It is believed that the inflated claim amounts given subsequently are further punishments for not adhering to their time scale. The Claimant is put to proof that the additional fees have in fact been paid to the relevant parties.
7. No contract was formed. This distinguishes the case from Beavis, where both parties accepted that a contract was in place due to the unusually clear and abundant signage. This is not the case here so it is denied that any contract was formed.
(a) Paragraph 3 is denied. The signage used by Civil Enforcement ltd was not “large prominent and legible” as the Supreme court found in ParkingEye v Beavis, where both parties agreed that a contract was formed. Excel parking services ltd v Cutts also shows that in order to create a contract between the driver and Civil Enforcement Ltd there must be clear and legible signs. There can be no contract between the driver and Civil Enforcement Ltd without a clear offer, consideration and acceptance. It is believed the charge was not even mentioned in the small print as it is not presented in the Claimants 'schedule of information Summary of Terms' Thus the signs do not meet legal requirements.
(b) It is also the defendants belief from images gained, that the signs are at least 7ft from ground level to the lowest point of the sign. Put this height together with small print that would be uncomfortable to read anyway makes it utterly impossible to read anything but "Free Parking" on the sign, no terms and conditions can be made out. It is also believed that the signs were unlit and dirty from being unkept. The Claimant is put to proof that their signs are frequent, obvious and legible to meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice Para 18.3 regarding legibility.
(c.) It is the defendants belief that there is no planning permission in place on the land in question for signage or the ANPR system in use by the Claimant. The claimant is put to strict proof that they followed all legal requirements by the local council at the time of installation.
(d) No fee was paid. The alleged incident took place in a free to park car park. Therefore there was no thought given by the driver (who's identity is unknown) as to a contract being formed.
There was no meeting of minds. The defendant did not agree to pay the undisclosed 'Charge' referred to in the Claimants 'Schedule of Claim' of claim, for the also undisclosed action.
8. The Claimant failed to identify or even attempt to identify the identity of the driver at the time of the incident.
(a) I confirm that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged offence. However I can neither confirm nor deny who the driver was at the time due to the age of this event.
(b) Using ANPR technology there is no possible way of identifying the driver of a vehicle. It is my belief that the Claimant did not attempt to ascertain the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged event from the keeper. The defendant received no 'notice to driver' or attempt to identify the driver and have them reported within the 28 day allowable period. The Claimant instead issued a 'notice to keeper'. A notice to keeper must be issued within 14 days of the alleged offence date as identified by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph 9(4)(b)-(5) The notice to keeper was not received until after 28 days. Further to this The defendant has proof that the Claimant did not even contact the DVLA to access keeper details until 23 days after the date of the alleged incident. The defendant is put to strict proof otherwise.
(c.) The Claimant failed to acknowledge Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on all correspondence. The defendant is put to proof otherwise and that they complied.

9. The Defendant therefore invites the court to strike out this claim, by what the Defendant is aware a serial litigant, Who fail to issue a valid statement of truth. Who fails to disclose cause of action, order particulars which comply with Practice Directions and do not have planning permission for the erection of ANPR technology or signage.
The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has issued the claim with no intention to pursue the matter to a hearing but with the intention to alarm the defendant into making a payment that is not owed. The claim is an abuse of the court process. If the court does not strike out the claim for these failures, the Defendant requests in the alternative that it orders the Claimant to file Particulars that comply with the practice directions and include at least the following
(a) Whether the claim has been brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(b) Whether keeper liability is claimed
(c.)Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal
(d) If charges over and above the initial charge are claimed, the basis on which they are claimed
When these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to add to or amend his defence.

Statement of truth.
I believe that this statement to the best of my knowledge is truth.
Signed: Dated:

jano1
Defence submitted anyway. There really does look to be a huge rush on at the moment! They must want some summer holiday money. Anyway Ill get reading up on the next steps. Thanks guys.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.