Civil Enforcement Ltd Defence

Laurie09

Hello,

I overstayed an hour maximum stay in a phone and pay ANPR controlled carpark. I have received a county court claim form from Civil Enforcement Ltd after months of letters from their solicitors and supposed debt collection agents.

I have read the newbies thread (which is great and super helpful!) and I have acknowledged the claim online and have started reading through the defence templates however I am struggling with one thing. Whilst the original Claim Form contained very little detail, literally my name, their name and the amount owed, CEL have since sent me through Particulars of Claim which included the date and time of the incident, my name, the name of the car park and the amount owed (£320.78) but no break down of costs.

Is the Particulars of Claim the same as a Schedule of Information?

The reason I ask is most defences for CEL include the below point which I don't think I can use as they have provided SOME of the information?

('c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information:
1. The defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
2. The VRN.
3. The date and time of the alleged incident.
4. Car park name.
5. Outstanding amount and break down of costs.'

Any guidance would be great!

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I would edit it in your case, to only pick out the things they didn't set out in the schedule (which is pretty much, their particulars of claim). Remember they do not know who was driving and they do not use the POFA, so that's a major issue.

Laurie09

Thanks for the speedy reply. Drafted my defence, would you mind casting your eyes over it?

Quentin

You say you want to claim you weren't driving.

So edit your OP to remove details of who was driving.

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you

Coupon-mad

(d) It is believed the terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs.

9/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any commercial justification.

You appear to have read some very old examples. The UTCCRs were repealed in 2015 and you should never utter the words 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' in a parking appeal since 2015.

Why not read some other CEL defences from the past few weeks, we have hundreds this year alone, and they do not cite the UTCCRs or 'GPEOL'.