CEL Court Defence - Restaurant Related

eliza2811

Report the new thread ?  How do i do that please ?  Can't i just copy and paste into this one and get rid of the new thread ?  Cheers

eliza2811

Hello,

I've had a go at writing a Defence.  I was wondering if one of you lovely experts could cast your eye over it.   I haven't put the bit with the keepers name, reg of car or claim no. below, but it will be added to the full version when I email it.  Someone did give me a hand at writing it and I did read the Newbies thread also.  I didn't use your template I admit but its work in progress. All the legal jargon just goes over my head.  I never named the driver to CEL or their debt collector company.  Thanks very much. 

PRELIMINARY MATTERS:

The Claimant, Civil Enforcement Ltd has issued a court claim form in which the Particulars of Claim (PoC) refer to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 15/04/2024 for an alleged breach on 25/02/2024. A 'Letter Before Claim' was received dated 16/12/2024 and arrived before Christmas week, the reply form was completed and returned after Christmas and New Year had passed. No reply to this was received and a Claim Form was issued on 24/06/2025. This is a breach of the Pre-Action-Protocol (PAP) and Civil-Procedure-Rules (CPR) for debt claims and on that basis the claim should now be immediately struck out.

The PoC state does not state whether they are pursuing the Defendant as driver of the vehicle or as the keeper. If they are relying on the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, (PoFA) for keeper liability, they are put to proof that they complied fully with the terms and conditions of the Act, including the use of statutory wording and time frames and that any notice was sent within the statutory time periods. Furthermore, CEL has not stated the basis on which the Defendant has liability. The PoC does not state that the Defendant is liable as the driver or as the keeper pursuant to PoFA. The Claimant must decide one or the other and cannot make any presumptions about the identity of the driver on the material date. CEL must rely on PoFA or provide evidence that the Defendant was the driver on the material date.

It is my belief that the Claimant can do neither. I also understand that CEL have grossly inflated the claim with substantial additional costs to this charge, which I believe have not been incurred and with no explanation as to why a charge that started out at £60 ended up at over £273. These additional costs are vaguely referred to as “Damages” with no explanation as to what costs have been incurred and how this sum was arrived at.

THE DEFENCE:

I, the Defendant, deny any breach of any known contract. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at that time. On 25/02/2024, the driver and passenger visited the Pear Tree Inn as genuine customers.

******* was parked up in the car park therefore. It was dark as it was February and the time driving in to the car park was 18.47 hrs. Any signs are poorly lit due to the darkness. No device was present inside the restaurant to enter the Vehicle Registration mark. The Defendant has since learned that the ANPR camera system was thought to be switched off at the time of visiting the premises on 25/02/2024 and prior to that date, by the Pear Tree management.

The Defendant received a PCN issued on 15/04/2024 (49 days after the alleged breach) and promptly contacted the Pear Tree Inn who reassured him that CEL no longer managed the car park and they would contact them to request cancellation and therefore no appeal was attempted. The Defendant then received letters from DCBL requesting payment of the parking charge.

The Defendant denies that the claimant has any standing to pursue this matter to court and they are put to strict proof of a contract with the landowner. CEL have added additional costs to the charge above the core charge on the Notice to Keeper. It is believed that these additional costs are disproportionate, have not been incurred and are in breach of CPR44.3 (2) which states only amounts that are reasonable and proportionate will be allowed. Further I believe that these additional sums amount to double recovery and are nothing more than a blatant attempt to bypass the limits put of these charges by both PoFA

Paragraph 4.5 -which states that the maximum amount that can be recovered from the keeper is that stated on the Notice to Keeper and the Supreme Court ParkingEye vs Beavis rulings, which held the sum on the Notice to Keeper and any additional costs amounted to a penalty rendering the contract void. Nor can these additional costs be described as “contractual costs” as they fail the test of fairness of the Consumers Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 (Grey List) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14 as the additional cost was not quantified on any alleged contract and as such are a hidden penalty, nor were they contractually agreed as they offered the defendant nothing of value (consideration) in return for paying this additional sum. I believe that these additional costs are nothing more than a crude attempt at double recovery to inflate the charge with sums they are not lawfully entitled to and an abuse of process.

I would like to draw the Court's attention to the many examples of cases struck out by judges up and down the country as an abuse of process to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. Many of these cases were struck out with the following reasoning’s: 'IT IS ORDERED THAT: The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis.

It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...'' I, the Defendant, invite the court to strike out this claim on the basis that it is without merit with little prospect of success and an abuse of process to issue a claim form in an attempt to recover costs to which they have no entitlement in law due to their own frustration of any alleged contract.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence 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.

eliza2811

I've added it to this thread now. 

QrizB

eliza2811 said:

Report the new thread ?  How do i do that please ?  Can't i just copy and paste into this one and get rid of the new thread ? 

Bottom of your post, little red flag. Click on it and choose "report" then scroll right to the bottom of the list of reasons and choose "move, merge or split".

Umkomaas

eliza2811 said:

Report the new thread ?  How do i do that please ?  Can't i just copy and paste into this one and get rid of the new thread ?  Cheers

You could do and hope the other one gets no further posts and slides down the ladder into oblivion.  But if there are replies, it stays on the first page, and your whole, single case gets pulled in potentially different directions. Alternatively, hit the red Report button and ask an MSE forum admin staff member to merge both threads. 

I wouldn't leave it to chance. Hit the button!

eliza2811

Umkomaas said:

eliza2811 said:

Report the new thread ?  How do i do that please ?  Can't i just copy and paste into this one and get rid of the new thread ?  Cheers

You could do and hope the other one gets no further posts and slides down the ladder into oblivion.  But if there are replies, it stays on the first page, and your whole, single case gets pulled in potentially different directions. Alternatively, hit the red Report button and ask an MSE forum admin staff member to merge both threads. 

I wouldn't leave it to chance. Hit the button!

I've asked if they can delete it instead. 

Coupon-mad

Are you not using the Template Defence, pinned at the top of page one of the forum?

eliza2811

Coupon-mad said:

Are you not using the Template Defence, pinned at the top of page one of the forum?

At this point, I don't know.. I'm willing to try another draft based on the template here and post it on this thread. 

The original seems very long and is everything on it really needed?

Thanks 

Gr1pr

I suggest that you adapt the template to suit,  but only paragraphs 2 & 3,  (  assuming that you are not using the Chan and Akande version  ),  then  post your draft below   ( but dont post the rest of the template  )

Then await advice on tweaking it to improve it

If any of the older paragraphs in the template need removing or replacing,  you will be told,  same as in the following coupon mad reply recently 

Quote

remove the stuff from the template paras 9-11 as the Template Defence needs that old stuff about the DLUHC weeding out

Unquote

Very few people,  if any, will read and check a non template based defence,  you normally pay a lawyer or similar for that 

eliza2811

Gr1pr said:

I suggest that you adapt the template to suit,  but only paragraphs 2 & 3,  (  assuming that you are not using the Chan and Akande version  ),  then  post your draft below   ( but dont post the rest of the template  )

Then await advice on tweaking it to improve it

If any of the older paragraphs in the template need removing or replacing,  you will be told,  same as in the following coupon mad reply recently 

Quote

remove the stuff from the template paras 9-11 as the Template Defence needs that old stuff about the DLUHC weeding out

Unquote

Very few people,  if any, will read and check a non template based defence,  you normally pay a lawyer or similar for that 

Thanks.

Incidentally I live in the same city where Hannah Robinson and Excel went to court and she, rightly so, won.  That poor woman must have been through hell with stress and worry!