CEL PCN Claimform - Appealed - Red Lion Car Park, Wetherby LS22 6LR

[FTMDave]

[dx100uk]

well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out.

dx

 

[Nick]

Defence and Counterclaim

Claim number

XXX

Claimant

Civil Enforcement Limited

Defendant

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

How much of the claim do you dispute?

I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.

 

Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?

No, for other reasons.

 

Defence

1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX 

2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.

4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.

6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have
no legal representative.

7. 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.

Signed

I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true

XXXXXXXXXXX

01/05/2024

 

Defendant's date of birth

XXXXXXXXXX

 

Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you

 

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for posting up the results from the sar.

The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period.

However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver.

I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all.

We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.