Hey folks, big shoutout for the endless support! It's been a wild 2-year rollercoaster, and surprisingly, they can't blame COVID for the delay – no pandemic excuses here! I've practically begged twice to revive the thread during this time too as nothing was happening! Cheers to the epic saga! Donation made

I am almost disappointed. I wanted their humiliation. But my partner is very relieved! The court have confirmed the case is cancelled! I love grumpy octopus ! it has stood me well!

STOP PRESS!!! Honestly in disbelief! Received a letter from CEL cancelling the proceedings. I will confirm with the court just incase it’s a dirty tactic ! 2024-01-28 CEL NOD N279..pdf

Unfortunately I did not send a CPR req. Thinking that ship has probably sailed. However there is another post on this group in the same car park. I have looked at the supposed contract from the land owner and CEL. But I suppose the risk is the contract could have been renegotiated since their case. I also have a copy of the land registry from that same case. I can't thank you enough, what you added and amended is amazing, Thank you. contract.pdf

Thank you everyone . I will have a good read in the morning and do some adjusting . The help is so much more appreciated than you will ever know

Hi This is my draft version. Would appreciate any critique anyone may have to offer. I haven't inserted the attachments yet and obviously the formatting needs tweaking. In the County Court of Newcastle upon Tyne Claim Number Between Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant) V XX (Defendant) WITNESS STATEMENT OF XX Introduction 1. I, XX am the Defendant in this claim. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence section supplied in this bundle, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. 3. I am the hirer of the vehicle in question in this case which is 4. Sequence of events: 4.1 On January 28, 2022, at 17:35, I parked my vehicle in the "Tenerife Buildings" car park with the intention of retrieving pre-ordered food from the takeaway located on Station Road. Regrettably, due to a confusion with the order, the process took more time than expected. 4.2 Subsequently, upon my return to the car, my infant became distressed, prompting me to choose to feed my baby while inside the vehicle. 4.3 On March 3, 2022, I was notified via email by NHS Fleet Solutions that they had handled a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and subsequently shared my information with the Claimant. (Appendix 1). NHS Fleet Solutions do not keep details of PCN charges. 4.4 On March 18, 2022, I received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) by mail, dated March 14, 2022 (see Appendix 2). The PCN indicates the violation as "Maximum 20 minutes free parking" at Tenerife Buildings, Station Road NE3 1QD. According to the PCN, the vehicle in question was parked during the period from 17:35:44 to 18:07:29. 4.5 After enduring a series of intimidating letters from the Claimant spanning over 12 months, which included references to additional costs, debt collection, court proceedings, CCJs, and potential repercussions on employment, I was served with an N1 Claim Form on the 24th of April, 2023. (see Appendix 3) POFA Schedule 4 5. POFA Schedule 4 Section 14 [2] states: 5.1 the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; 5.2 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. 5.3 It is asserted that the Creditor is precluded from seeking recovery of the charges. This is primarily due to their failure to dispatch a Notice to Hirer, neglecting to furnish a duplicate of the Notice to Keeper forwarded to the NHS, omission of the 13[2] replicated documents, and the issuance of a 28-day notice period, in contravention of the stipulated 21-day requirement. In addition to this despite the presence of ANPR cameras, the Claimant has not submitted any photographic evidence to support their case. Double Recovery 6. The Plaintiff is misusing the court proceedings by asserting a claim for £50 in legal representative's costs, despite not designating any legal representative and, in fact, representing themselves. In addition to £50 in legal costs, the Claimant pursues restitution of the initial £100 parking charge and an extra £70. No further rationale or itemised breakdown has been supplied, as mandated by Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 (refer to page 33, Exhibit 06). Unless the Claimant can provide clear evidence substantiating the purported additional costs, it may be construed as an effort to seek double recovery. 7. In previous instances related to parking charge cases, legal precedent, as established in Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, dictates that the parking charge itself encompasses the costs of recovery. The authoritative ruling in this case concluded that the specified sum (£85), or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm, is designed to cover all associated costs, including those related to an automated private parking business model. The Supreme Court emphases that a parking firm lacking possession cannot assert any part of their case in damages. 8. Since 2019, numerous County Courts have deemed claims exceeding £100 as an abuse of process, leading to their immediate dismissal. For instance, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies (case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019), District Judge Jones-Evans explicitly warned against such claims, stating that they are unenforceable in law and constitute an abuse of process. The court's declaration specified that any claim exceeding £60 would be treated as a penalty, echoing the decision in the Supreme Court v Beavis. 9. In landmark judgments in November 2019 (Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby), courts further reinforced the principle that claims extending beyond the parking charge itself are considered an abuse of process. Judges highlighted that any additional charge, not explicitly specified on signage and not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, constitutes an abuse of process. 10. Moreover, the inclusion of costs not clearly specified on signage is deemed a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically violating paras 6, 10, and 14. The Defendant contends that the Claimant knowingly submitted inflated costs, and therefore, the entire claim should be struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4). The Defendant asserts that the Claimant should have been aware that claiming in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis case, the Protection of Freedoms Act, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Relief from sanctions, in this case, should be refused. 11. The signage at the entrance (referenced in Appendix X) does not constitute a contract but rather extends an "invitation to treat." In the event the claimant asserts a breach of contract, it is imperative to invoke the Unfair Terms in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This legislation stipulates that an unfair term in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier is not legally binding on the consumer. In the context of a parking ticket, should a term be deemed unfair, the parking company may be precluded from enforcing it. 12. Article 62(4) explicitly states that a term is unfair if, in contradiction to the principle of good faith, it results in a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. Article 62 further declares that unfair terms shall not be binding on the consumer. I contend that imposing a £180 charge for an 11-minute overstay is inherently unfair and, consequently, not binding. 13. Moreover, there exists considerable ambiguity, as the driver had the opportunity to renegotiate terms (as indicated by the signage) with the shopkeepers. The Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are not privy to, nor can they override, any conversation and agreement the driver may have had with the stores. 14. In alignment with the guidance on writing fair contracts provided by gov.uk, contract terms and notices are generally deemed unfair if they place the customer at an unjust disadvantage. Signage 15. I possess written confirmation (refer to Appendix XX) indicating that the signage within the parking area did not comply with the standards set by the local authority, rendering it unreasonable. Under the Town and Country Planning Act of 2007, obtaining planning permission is mandatory for the installation of permanent signage exceeding 0.3 square meters, as is the case in car parks. My thorough search of the local authority's planning applications register, spanning from 1986 to the present, revealed no record of applications or permissions for car park signage or the installation of ANPR cameras at the Tenerife Buildings. 16. An email communication from the Planning Enforcement Department affirmed that these signs indeed necessitated planning permission. Notably, there are currently no approved or pending applications for such signage. According to Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, exhibiting an advertisement in violation of the Regulations constitutes a criminal offense. The photographic evidence of the signage surrounding the Tenerife Buildings (see Appendix xx) underscores that these signs are in place without proper consent, rendering them illegal advertisements. 17. Based on the aforementioned details, I firmly believe that the Claimant should not benefit from this illicit act, aligning with the principle "ex dolo malo non oritur actio" (RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd. v. Bracewell (2015). Moreover, the absence of planning permission for said signage implies that CEL is in breach of the Code of Practice established by the BPA, which mandates adherence to all legal requirements in conducting parking operations. Consequently, this raises serious doubts about their entitlement to seek motorists' data from the DVLA. 18. believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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:……………………………………………

Thank you everyone. I have also discovered that they likely dont't have planning permission for the signage or the ANPR cameras. I can't find any applications dating back to 1993. I have emailed the planning dept for clarification.

Ho, ho, ho! Guess what Santa dropped off at my doorstep this Christmas Eve? Drumroll, please... the Notice of Allocation to Small Claims Track! Because nothing says "festive cheer" like legal documents, am I right? Thanks, legal system, you really know how to sprinkle that Christmas magic! Now, instead of sipping hot cocoa and belting out carols, I'll be jingling all the way to craft and tweak my witness statement. It's like Santa gave me the gift of legal wrangling! dear forum pals, if any kind soul out there wants to be my legal elf and take a peek at my masterpiece in the making, I promise you'll be on the "Nice List" next year! 'Tis the season for small claims drama, fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la! 2023-12-19 NOA Hearing 2023-02-29.pdf

Just got the golden ticket to my local County Court! Well notification it has been transferred to my local county court . This saga has outlasted my favourite TV series – I half expect a popcorn vendor at the courtroom entrance. Let the legal sitcom begin!

Yes from the court. Filled in ticked no to mediation and ticked no to suitability for determination without hearing. 3 copies one for me one for court and one for their solicitor. MCOL states this: Case Stay Lifted on 11/08/2023 DQ sent to you on 11/08/2023 DQ filed by claimant on 11/08/2023

Just an update to the thread! Yesterday received form N180 Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Smalls Claim Track. This was dated 11th August how slow is our postal system!

I appreciate your suggestion, but just to clarify, I haven't vanished for 2 months. I've been actively reading and staying engaged with the forum and other forums. I value the self-help approach that CAG promotes and have been following along with various PCN claim-form threads. Looking forward to continuing the discussions here. However in my particular case if there is nothing to update then I see little point in putting up continuous “nothing to report” posts.

UPDATE Since I have submitted my defence I have heard nothing. Is this common? Do I get informed if they have dropped the case?

Thank you for this. I appreciate the support. I am going to work on the defence today as I am working from home. I have dug out the initial PCN that was sent it was dated 14/03/2022, the offence was 28/01/2022 so 45 days. I have submitted my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. The defendant denies any liability on this matter as the Claimant has failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Namely but not limited to, failing to supply the additional documents mandated by section 14 (2) of the act. 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 does not have the necessary permissions for their camera and signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. Thus committing a criminal offence by having them there. 6.The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 7. The Claimant is abusing the court process by claiming £50 legal representative's costs even though they have nominated no legal representative and indeed are representing themselves. 8. 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. Fingers crossed they drop it but I have my doubts.

Dx100 the LBA arrived around the time my father had had a cardiac arrest. I don’t think it was ignored but probably not given the diligence I should have . When you say type out the full particulars I apologise . lookedforinfo no I was not sent a copy of the PCN sent to the NHS just a notification email from the lease company. I tried to obtain a copy but they don’t keep that info. I still have a copy of the email.

FTMDave is that the same as a Letter before Action - Claim for Debt ? if so they sent that on the 22/12/2022

Which Court have you received the claim from ? MCOL Northampton N1 Name of the Claimant : Civil Enforcement LTD Claimants Solicitors: S Wilson Date of issue – 24th April 2023 Date for AOS - 13th May (done) Date to submit Defence - 4pm Friday 26th May What is the claim for – 1. Claim for money relating to the parking charge for breach of contract terms/conditions for parking in private car park managed by client. Drivers may only Park pursuant to TCs of use displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/parking. 2. The ANPR cameras or manual patrol monitor vehicles entering/accessing the CP and TC breaches. Charges of GBP 170 claimed. Violation date 28/01/2022 Payment due date 26/02/2022 Time in 1735 time out 1807 PCN Vehicle Reg Mark Car Park Tenerife buildings Total due £170 The Claimant claims the sum of £186.69 for the unpaid parking charge inc £16.69 interest under s.69 of the CCA 1984 Rate 8.00% PA due from date to -21/04/23 same rate to judgement or sooner payment at daily rate of - £0.04 Total debt and interest due £186.69 What is the value of the claim? £271.69 Amount Claimed £186.69 court fees £35 legal rep fees £50 Total Amount £271.69 Have you moved since the issuance of the PCN? No claim form.pdf

Dx100uk. what have I been doing? Working 50 plus hrs for the ambulance service to keep everyone safe as we are short staffed. Looking after 2 kids under 6. Trying to keep myself alive with caffeine and sandwiches whilst trying to keep my kids happy and myself sane. . Yes I have been reading but as I received a letter I thought I would update the thread. I apologies if I haven’t put a minute by minute itinerary on this post. If you don’t want to assist me personally that’s fine but I just asked for a small piece of advice

Hello Update to this post. I have one letter stating costs please pay etc etc. This arrived today dated the 5th May. Do I just wait it out? Thanks in advance 2022-05-05 CEL Passing to DCA.pdf

I have found this by another member who received a ticket from the same place . Apparently there was no planning permission for the signs and I have searched Newcastle City Council website and can find no applications for that postcode.

Apologies it has taken so long. I am working nights working for the ambulance service! Please answer the following questions. 1 Date of the infringement 28/01/2022 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 14/03/2022 3 Date received Email notification from lease company on 03/03/2022 received letter on 18/038/2022 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] NO 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? No 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] N 7 Who is the parking company? Civil Enforcement 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Tenerife Buildings, Station Road, Gosforth Newcastle NE3 1QD For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. POPLA Many thanks 2022-03-14 PCN incident date 2022-01-28.pdf

Hi everyone I have an NHS Lease car. I received an email from the lease company on 03/03/2022 to state that a PCN had been processed. I went onto the website and put the ref number in and it relates to an "offence" dated on 28/01/2022. I finally received the notice on 18/03/2022 I am unsure if what I have read so far is applicable with it being a lease car. The terms of parking state that you have 20 mins to park. I have attached signs below. I had my small child who decided she wanted to be fed. i was 12 mins over. I am unsure whether to appeal Any help would be appreciated signs.pdf