1
Private parking tickets / Re: Civil Enfocement letter Aka: ce-sevice.co.uk
« on: Yesterday at 09:28:34 pm »
OK, so the address they used was the previous address before the V5C was updated.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: L1GF6N4RBETWEEN:
Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:(a) The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), lacking any specific terms allegedly breached, the signage locations, or details of the breach. This prevents the Defendant from properly pleading a defence, and the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4. The Defendant cites the persuasive cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30] (both attached), where similarly vague claims were struck out. Should the court not strike out the claim, the Defendant refers to the draft order in paragraph 4.
(b) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(c) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(d) The PoC do not set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(e) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(f) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;
(g) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(h) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.
4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which they face and can then respond properly to the claim.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
...if the NTK is not addressed to you then you cannot 'appeal' unless you have the written authority of the addressee(the registered keeper).
These notices are placed throughout the car park.
We ensure that signage is ample, clear and visible, wholly in line with the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
There are sufficient signs advising drivers that parking without a permit may result in a parking charge being issued.
URGENT
Dear Sirs,
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (THE ‘CLAIMANT’) V [your full name] CLAIM REFERENCE H3GM80Q8
On 24th October 2024, I received the attached letter dated 13th October 2024 from yourselves. This came as a tremendous shock as it is the first and only communication I have received from your company or any organisation representing you in relation to this claim.
I made immediate enquiries of the CNBC from which I was able to establish that:1. the claim relates to an alleged parking event in March 2019;
2. the claim form was sent to an old address at which I no longer reside; and
3. if I had been given the opportunity to do so, I would have successfully defended the claim.
I did not receive any pre-claim correspondence, not even a letter of claim as required by the PAP. Nor did I receive the claim form or any particulars of claim and was thus deprived of the ability to defend the claim. Your company is well aware that people move home from time to time. You also know that I did not respond to any communications sent to me at my old address.
This situation is explicitly dealt with in the Civil Procedure Rules which provide at CPR 6.9(3):(3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant ... is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).
As your company is a member of the British Parking Association (the ‘BPA’) and is bound by the BPA’s Code of Practice which gives voice to CPR 6.9(3) in the following terms:24.1c Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NtD/NtK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.
If your company had taken the actions required by the Civil Procedure Rules and the Code of Practice, my current address would have been found easily, which is obviously what you did before sending your letter dated 13th October 2024. If those actions had been performed at the correct time rather than after judgment, I would not have been deprived of the ability to defend the claim.
By reason of Civil Enforcement's breach of the Civil Procedure Rules, which amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court, the claim form was never properly served and the judgment must be set aside at your expense and the claim dismissed because it is now too late for the particulars of claim to be re-served.
In view of the foregoing, I invite Civil Enforcement Ltd to join with me in an application to set aside the judgment and dismiss the claim, with Civil Enforcement Ltd paying the court fee and no order as to costs.
Please respond to the above offer as soon as possible so that, if the offer is acceptable to you, we can work together to right the wrong that Civil Enforcement has done to me.
To give you a reasonable time to take instructions and for us to agree a suite of documents for the Court, I am willing to defer making a unilateral application to set aside the judgment until 4 pm on Wednesday 13th November 2024. If a joint application has not been made by that time, I intend to instruct a solicitor to apply to the Court unilaterally for an order setting the judgment aside, striking out the particulars of claim, dismissing the claim and awarding costs against Civil Enforcement Ltd on a full indemnity basis.
Pease respond by immediate return.
Yours faithfully,
Why do you think you never received any notice of this? When you moved, did you update your V5C for the vehicle?
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
Secure-A-Space Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not clearly set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breaches occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charges were allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.
4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and am appealing Horizon Parking’s Parking Charge Notice on the grounds that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued fails to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), specifically Schedule 4, Paragraph 9. Due to these deficiencies, Horizon Parking has no right to hold me, the keeper, liable. This appeal will demonstrate that Horizon Parking's NtK does not meet all mandatory requirements of PoFA, and partial or substantial compliance is legally insufficient.
1. Failure to Comply with the Mandatory 28-Day Notice Period
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires that:"...the notice must state that the creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given..."
This wording mandates that the 28-day period begins the day after the NtK is deemed served. For an NtK sent by post, it is “given” two working days after the date of issue, and the 28-day countdown should start the following day (the third working day after the issue date).
However, Horizon Parking's NtK states:"You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge..."
This is incorrect. Horizon Parking has improperly commenced the 28-day period from the second working day after the date of issue rather than from the day after it is deemed served. This error results in the 28-day period beginning one day earlier than PoFA prescribes.
2. Strict Compliance with PoFA is Required – Partial Compliance is Insufficient
The wording and timing of PoFA are explicit, and courts have held that strict compliance with PoFA is required to transfer liability to the keeper. Horizon Parking’s NtK fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) exactly as prescribed. This failure means that Horizon Parking cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the alleged charge.
The fact that Horizon Parking’s NtK almost meets the requirements is irrelevant under PoFA. Any minor deviation from the exact language or requirements in PoFA renders the NtK non-compliant. Therefore, partial or substantial compliance does not satisfy PoFA; Horizon Parking must meet every single requirement precisely.
3. Incorrect Wording on Keeper Liability
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires the following wording:"...the creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper if, at the end of the period of 28 days... the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver."
Horizon Parking's NtK uses ambiguous wording by stating:"...we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you."
This deviation introduces confusion and does not match the strict requirements of PoFA. Horizon Parking’s NtK does not correctly convey that liability will only transfer to the keeper if specific PoFA conditions are met. The NtK's failure to use precise language, as PoFA mandates, further invalidates any keeper liability.
4. No Obligation to Identify the Driver
The NtK wording implies that Horizon Parking may pursue the keeper because the driver has not been identified. However, PoFA imposes no obligation on the keeper to identify the driver. As the registered keeper, I have chosen not to provide driver details, and there is no legal requirement for me to do so.
Without strict compliance with PoFA, Horizon Parking has no legal grounds to hold the keeper liable, regardless of whether the driver’s identity is disclosed.
5. Request for Strict Proof of Full Compliance with PoFA
Horizon Parking claims the right to hold the keeper liable under PoFA. I request that POPLA requires Horizon Parking to provide strict proof of compliance with all aspects of PoFA, not just selected parts. Horizon Parking must demonstrate that the NtK:• States the mandatory 28-day period correctly, beginning the day after the notice is deemed served.
• Contains the precise wording mandated by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f), regarding the conditions for holding the keeper liable.
• Complies with every other requirement in Schedule 4 of PoFA, as partial compliance is legally insufficient.
If Horizon Parking cannot demonstrate full compliance with PoFA, POPLA must conclude that there is no keeper liability in this case and the PCN must be cancelled.
Appeal to IAS: Denial of Contractual Liability
I, as the registered keeper, deny any contractual liability for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Patrol Office. The signage terms are contradictory and ambiguous, rendering compliance impossible. My appeal is based on the following points:
1. Contradictory and Legally Impossible Signage Terms
The signage states, “Parking is only allowed whilst loading and unloading.” This creates an impossible condition, as “loading/unloading” is not synonymous with “parking.” In Jopson v Homeguard (2016) B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris QC distinguished “parking” from “loading/unloading,” noting:“Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it … a vehicle engaged in loading or unloading is not ‘parked’ in the ordinary sense of the term.”
The signage demands that the vehicle be both “parked” and engaged in “loading/unloading,” which is inherently contradictory. Since the driver was engaged solely in unloading goods as part of official duties, the vehicle was not “parked” and therefore cannot have breached any terms regarding a parking duration.
2. ANPR Limitations and Inaccurate Time Representation
The PCN is based on ANPR-captured entry and exit times, which inaccurately represent the actual unloading period. These times reflect entry and exit from the road, not the duration during which the vehicle was stationary and actively unloading. The signage does not specify that the 20-minute limit applies to the entire time on the land, nor does it clarify that ANPR timings would be used in this way.
3. Breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 – Requirement for Clear and Transparent Terms
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contract terms must be fair, transparent, and unambiguous. If the signage was intended to enforce a time limit for the total duration on the land (including time driving along the road), this should have been clearly stated. The current wording misleads drivers into understanding that the 20-minute limit applies to time spent actively loading or unloading.
This ambiguity is fundamentally unfair, as it creates confusion and imposes an unreasonable penalty on drivers who act in accordance with the apparent purpose of the signage. Without explicit clarification, the terms are legally invalid under the CRA.
4. Denial of Contractual Liability
For these reasons, I deny any contractual liability. The vehicle was not “parked” and was present only to unload goods, as allowed by the signage. The ambiguous terms on the signage make it impossible to determine that any contract was breached.
Conclusion
Due to the contradictory and unclear terms on the signage, the flawed use of ANPR to determine unloading duration, and the CRA requirement for clear and transparent terms, I request that the IAS cancel this PCN. The driver’s actions complied with the signage's intended purpose, and no enforceable breach of contract occurred.