Jump to content


CEL ANPR PCN Feb 2016 Claimform - Worcester Leisure centre car park


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2642 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

I have received a CCJ from CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED after parking in a Worcester Leisure centre car park in early February 2016. I was a member at the establishment at the time (I have contacted them, merely stated they didn’t manage the car park), the car park uses ANPR cameras to record all incoming and outgoing vehicles, no barriers. I make no comment on the driver of the vehicle on said date.

 

I received the NTK, followed by follow up letters, followed by a solicitor letter. I have since destroyed all of which.

 

The claim is for approximately £325

 

Amount Claimed: £250 (Rounded up)

Court Fee: £25

Legal representative’s costs: £50

Total: £325

 

QUOTE from Claim for -

Particulars of Claim:

Outstanding debt and damages

DATE—DESCRIPTION—AMOUNT—DUE DATE

**/02/16 Ref ********** 236.00 **/02/16

 

Total Due- 236.00

(Ref: www .ce-service.co.uk or Tel:01158225020

The claimant claims the sum of £250 for Outstanding debt and damages including 12.83 interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to- 13/10/16 Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment Daily rate to Judgment- 0.05

Total debt and interest due- 250.00

I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.”

 

 

I have looked over a few threads on the forum and drafted an initial defence as seen below. Any and all help/advice greatly welcomed and appreciated.

 

 

It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

 

However it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim on the following grounds:-

 

1. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper has not been proven as the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements.

 

2. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED.

 

3. CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED are not the lawful occupier of the land.

(i) absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

 

4. The terms and conditions displayed on the signs at the entrance to the the site in question were unclear and not prominent on site/around the areas in question, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 14 days

 

5. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

 

 

6. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.

 

7. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:

a) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

 

8. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and CIVIL ENFROCEMENT LIMITED have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

 

9. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

 

I have ACKNOWLEDGED the claim online and have until 14th November to provide a defense.

 

Let me know if there is any further details or information I can provide to strengthen my case.

 

Many thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean a claimform not a CCJ - yet I take it>>>

 

have you sent their solicitors our private parking CPR 31:14 .

 

that's the first move

 

no real point in entering a defence yet nor like that [too much info]

until you've asked for the documents they intend to rely upon.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

[Your address]

.

[Their address]

.

[Date]

.

Dear Sir or Madam,

.

Re: (Claimant's name) v (Your name) Case No:

.

CPR 31.14 Request

.

On (date) I received the Claim Form in this case issued by you out of the (Name) county court.

.

I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court in which I indicate my intention to contest and counter claim all of your claim.

.

Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of [each of the following / the] document(s) mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:

.

1. proof of assignment from the landlord to create contracts and make claims in your own name.

.

2.proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007

the contract between VCS and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name,

Planning Permission for their signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007,

copies of the notice to driver,

notice to keeper and any other correspondence from VCS or Gladstones to the defendant.

Give them 14 days to comply

.

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are disclosed at your earliest convenience..

.

Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for the originals of the documents I have requested, the better for you to be able to verify the document's authenticity and to provide me with a legible copy.

.

Further, where I have requested a copy of a document, the original of which is now in the possession of another person, you will have a right to possession of that document if you have mentioned it in your case. You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose of this case.

.

Where I have mentioned a document and there is in your possession more than one version of that same document owing to a modification, obliteration or other marking or feature, each version will be a separate document and you must provide a copy of each version of it to me. Your obligations extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for any version(s) to include an obligation to recover and preserve such version(s) which are now in the possession of a third party.

.

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

.

If you are unable to comply with this request and believe that you will never be able to comply with this request please confirm in your response.

.

Yours faithfully

.

TYPE YOUR NAME DO NOT SIGN IT

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so, usual garbage from CEL, they just make up anything and hope you dotn defend, they cant legally claim any of the costs they try on and have been put to task on this before.

 

As for your defence.

Bin the lot, you dont need any detail at this moment as they dont like to appear in court and are well known to the courts system so you probably will never have to get that far.

 

What I would do is acknowledge the service of the claim and

then wait the 14 days from the date on the claim for the non-arrival of their proper POC and

 

 

enter a defence of

"the claimant has no locus standi,

there is no keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

and in any case was no breach of contract by the defendant".

 

You have an extra fortnight to do this after sending back the Acknowledgement of Service.

 

Write a separate letter saying that there is nothing in the particulars of claim that shows a cause for action against the defendant and the claim should be struck out under CPR 16.4 as they failed to send the full particulars in the prescribed time

 

Who has signed the claim for for CEL?

tell us as there is a long running problem with Ashley Cohen forgetting how to spell his name and remembering who he works for.

He sometimes imagines he is a solicitor. Post up a copy of the signature for comparison.

 

Once you have done this

in time you will need to do a bit of homework and that includes photographing the signage at the site

as CEL always submit false evidence by way of a computer printout of what they would like the signs to say rather than a copy of the real one.

 

 

If they havent used a solicitor then you need to send the CPR 31.14 to them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I'm going to:

 

- Send CPR 31.14 (Send to CEL)

- Send letter stating case should be struck out under CPR 16.4 (Send to CEL)

 

As for the signature it is signed by typed out writing:

 

Signed Mr Michael Schwartz

(Claimant's Legal Representative)

 

Once again, many thanks for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can request a 16.4 strike-out until you have given them an opportunity to respond to your 31.14 request. And that would be a letter to the Court, not CEL.

 

 

You have a way to go before you get there.

 

 

You haven't yet been allocated a hearing date, have you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

follow the timescales.

 

IF CEL dont send the full particulars within the 14 days they are allowed

then you write to the court and ask for a strike out under CPR 16.4

because they havent followed the procedures to show why they are claiming from you.

You do not send this to CEL, just the court

 

BEFORE you do that send a CPR31.14 request for documantation to CEL

 

They arent using a solicitor, Michael Swartz isnt a practising solicitor and they are committing fraud by claiming that he is.

 

He has been sanctioned by the SRA for allowing Ashley Cohen to use his name and title before so add that to your complaint to the court when you dont get the full POC in a fortnight's time.

 

You will be doing more letter writing to the court soon so try and keep abrast of what we tell you, timings and wording are important.

 

So send of Acknowledgement of service with the defence suggested and the CPR 31.14 to CEL.

In a fortnight's time come back here for wording of your new letters to court.

 

I can guarantee you that you dont have to defend yourself in court,

Ashley wants your money,

not his collar felt and

 

various stupid offers to settle will be made, right up to the day of the hearing (if they bother risking it that far) but

 

you must do some homework on both the place you parked and this company

- they are the biggest crooks in the business.

That is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of Scottish Trading standards amongst others.

 

You may also be writing a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority as well,

as said they have sanctioned him for this crooked wheeze before so they may well like to know that his name is still been forged on court documents and start their own action against the person who keeps doing this.

 

Scan up the signature and I will tell you whose it actually is, I have a file with about a dozen versions

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

next job, get photos of the signs at the leisure centre.

 

The POC is signed by Ashley Cohen so what has been signed by Michael Swartz?

 

I presume the N1 form so scan that up for us.

 

when you have done this I would recommend that you make a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and complain that Swartz is in breach of the sanctions against him forbidding him from allowing his signagture to be used as he is not a practising solicitor and he is barred from signing anything in his own name for the said reasons.

 

If it is Ashley's signature than add this to the complaint and consider a separate compaint to the MoJ and the courts service about this forgery and attempted fraud.

 

Nothing will get done but the letters should be added to your evidence bundle if it gets that far and then the judge will undoubtedly look into the past history.

 

The POC is trying to claim things that are totally irrelevant,

they arent even suing the right entity for starters

yet quote their membership of the BPA as though they were actually obeying its code in this claim, which they arent.

 

Vine v Waltham Forest is an odd one for them to raise as the appeal found that the action of the council was wrong as they couldnt show that the motorist agreed to the trespass, which by mrs Vine's words she clearly hadnt.

 

So CEL are claiming that you have agreed to waive your rights to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, thank you for your replies,

 

I shall upload pictures of parking signs tomorrow, along with the N1 claim form.

 

Are there any suggested templates for complaint letter to solictors regulation authority?

 

Also on the N1 form Swartz hasn't signed anything it's just his name typed with "(Claimants Legal Representative)". See above photos for Shleys signature.

 

Many thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course he hasnt signed anything,

he never has,

just allows his name to be used so Ashley can add another £50 to his outrageous bill.

 

The point is that is illegal and Mikey and Ashley know it.

 

He cannot represent anyone as he isnt a practising solicitor.

 

It is fraud by misrepresentation, simple as.

 

Unusually I will PM you as I will need the claim number if you want me to speak to the person at the SRA whom I previously liased with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, timeline of events so far.

 

14 Oct 16 - Claimform

 

21 Oct 16 - CPR 31.14 sent (See below for copy) - Not all details requested have been provided?

 

25 Oct 16 - CPR 31.14 received and signed for.

 

27 Oct 16 - Particulars of claim/ two further documents recieved (See attatched)

 

1 Nov 16 - Car Park pictures taken (see attatched)

 

CPR 31.14 Letter:

"Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Re: CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED v XXX XXX Case No: XXXXXXXX

 

CPR 31.14 Request

 

On 20/10/2016 I received the claim form in this case issued by you out of the Northampton County Court.

 

I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court in which I indicate my intention to contest and counter claim all of your claim.

 

Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of each of the following document(s) mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:

 

1. Proof of assignment from the landlord to create contracts and make claims in your own name,

 

2. Proof of planning permission granted for signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007,

 

3. The contract between CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name,

 

4. Copies of the notice to driver,

 

5. Notice to keeper and any other correspondence from CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED, VCS or Gladstones to the defendant.

 

6. Detailed particulars of claim.

 

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are disclosed at your earliest convenience.

 

Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for the originals of the documents I have requested, the better for you to be able to verify the document's authenticity and to provide me with a legible copy.

 

Further, where I have requested a copy of a document, the original of which is now in the possession of another person, you will have a right to possession of that document if you have mentioned it in your case. You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose of this case.

 

Where I have mentioned a document and there is in your possession more than one version of that same document owing to a modification, obliteration or other marking or feature, each version will be a separate document and you must provide a copy of each version of it to me. Your obligations extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for any version(s) to include an obligation to recover and preserve such version(s) which are now in the possession of a third party.

 

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

 

If you are unable to comply with this request and believe that you will never be able to comply with this request please confirm in your response.

 

Yours faithfully,

XXX XXX "

 

See PDF version attachments

PDF complete.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

PM me the claim number and i'll fwd it

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

their signage damns them,

it doesnt say they have a contact to manage etc just that you agree to pay £100- not to them mind

 

you could defend yourself by saying you paid the £100 to your wife as you know that you are a naughtly boy and deserve to be punished.

 

£100 is cheap for that sort of thing according to the cards in London phone boxes and they dont form a contract either, just an invitation to treat....

 

Also, no indication on sign what trade association they belong to so how cann you use the arbitration procedures you are entitled to use in law.

 

Another point for your defence.

You might have used POPLA and Ombudsman Services if offered the opportunity but not given.

 

You are now aware that they cant claim legal fees as they havent paid any

and there is no contractual obligation to pay more than £100 despite their sign saying about additional costs.

 

No tariif of costs offered and anyway,

Beavis decision actually makes these incorporated into the £100 or they would get a bean other than the costs. stupid and dishonest ( no change there then).

Link to post
Share on other sites

no

you haven't filed a defence yet!!

 

CPR is a REQUEST

they don't HAVE to comply.

 

stupid if they don't mind

but no theres no penalty for noncompliance

other than a judges raised eyebrows

IF it ever gets before one

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok simple skeleton defence.

 

1/No keeper liability created under POFA 2012 so no cause for action against the defendant.

 

2/in any case CEL have failed to show cause for action by way of sight of planning permission for their signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 and a contract between themselves and the landowner assigning the right to enter into contracts and make civil claims in their own name by way of a CPR 31.14 request.

 

3/the signage is prohibitive rather than contractual so no contract formed to be broken.

 

Then add a letter saying that as CEL have failed to show a cause for action you ask that their claim be struck out as having no prospect of success.

 

You can address all of the other issues if it gets to exchange of documents, where you must provide evidence of anything else you want to use. That will include copy of the SRA finding about Michael Schwartz being barred from signing off anything as a solicitor ( the courts know all about this so it is only used to bump up the monet collected from those who panic and pay up).

 

I would also bet that it is another of Ashley's companies that have the contract and signed off with a third party rather than landowner. As he failed to show any link on Companies House he is not allowed to assign rights without informing people and that would include you.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi chaps,

 

So, defense wise something along the lines of:

 

It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

 

However it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim on the following grounds:-

 

1. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper has not been proven as the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements.

 

2. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED.

 

3. CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED are not the lawful occupier of the land.

(i) absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

 

4. The terms and conditions displayed on the signs at the entrance to the the site in question were unclear and not prominent on site/around the areas in question, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 14 days

 

5. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

 

 

6. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.

 

7. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:

a) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

 

 

8. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

9. CEL have failed to show cause for action by way of sight of planning permission for their signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 and a contract between themselves and the landowner assigning the right to enter into contracts and make civil claims in their own name by way of a CPR 31.14 request.

 

10. The signage displayed is prohibitive rather than contractual therefore no contract has been formed to be broken.

 

Accompanied by a letter stating that CEL have failed to show a cause for action, therefore I request the case to be struck out as it has no prospect of success.

 

Apologies for constantly requesting clarity, I have no experience in court proceedings and the like,

 

Once again many thanks for your assistance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

might have no experience but your work is top notch

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have kept it simpler as by going into detail you damage the chances of going off piste later but if you understand what you have written then it is up to you.

 

You seem to be inviting CEL to show third party rights of assignment where I would say that thy havent a contract with landowner, which is more straightforwards as that doesnt invite managing agents to have any undisclosed rights.

 

As CEL are liars this is a risky strategy.

 

Also your other points 3, 7a and 8 are erroneous or irrelavent,

just lawyer type flowery language.

You dont speak like that down the pub so no need to write like it here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have kept it simpler as by going into detail you damage the chances of going off piste later but if you understand what you have written then it is up to you.

 

You seem to be inviting CEL to show third party rights of assignment where I would say that thy havent a contract with landowner, which is more straightforwards as that doesnt invite managing agents to have any undisclosed rights.

 

As CEL are liars this is a risky strategy.

 

Also your other points 3, 7a and 8 are erroneous or irrelavent,

just lawyer type flowery language.

You dont speak like that down the pub so no need to write like it here.

 

Okay I've trimmed it down a bit as advised, and submitted it electronically.

 

It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

 

However it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim on the following grounds:-

 

1. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper has not been proven as the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements.

 

2. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED.

 

3. The terms and conditions displayed on the signs at the entrance to the the site in question were unclear and not prominent on site/around the areas in question, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 14 days

 

4. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

 

5. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.

 

6. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reason:

The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

 

7. CEL have failed to show cause for action by way of sight of planning permission for their signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 and a contract between themselves and the landowner assigning the right to enter into contracts and make civil claims in their own name by way of a CPR 31.14 request.

 

8. The signage displayed is prohibitive rather than contractual therefore no contract has been formed to be broken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...