N180 DQ Query - PCN Restaurant Related

Gr1pr

My method would be 

Copy the correct template into Word,  remove all the wording in paragraphs 9) , 10) & 11) , leaving just the numbers for now ( renumber when its the final document   )

Edit paragraphs 2) & 3) to suit your case, adding 3.1) , 3.2) etc if required 

Copy and paste the whole of your paragraphs from 2 & 3 & 3.1 etc on here for critique 

Keep adapting as required or as advised 

Then decide if paragraphs 9 to 11 should be removed or differently worded 

Renumber when completed 

Save as a docx document,  then use SAVE AS and change it to pdf,  to publish it, saving the pdf too

Use the pdf document to attach to your email to claim.responses etc, following the 12 steps closely 


The above seems obvious to me but there are some victims who dont seem to grasp the basics ( but I don't think that you are one of them   )

Sorry to be pedantic,  but I hope others read this cobbled together guide, lol

eliza2811

Gr1pr said:

My method would be 

Copy the correct template into Word,  remove all the wording in paragraphs 9) , 10) & 11) , leaving just the numbers for now ( renumber when its the final document   )

Edit paragraphs 2) & 3) to suit your case, adding 3.1) , 3.2) etc if required 

Copy and paste the whole of your paragraphs from 2 & 3 & 3.1 etc on here for critique 

Keep adapting as required or as advised 

Then decide if paragraphs 9 to 11 should be removed or differently worded 

Renumber when completed 

Save as a docx document,  then use SAVE AS and change it to pdf,  to publish it, saving the pdf too

Use the pdf document to attach to your email to claim.responses etc, following the 12 steps closely 


The above seems obvious to me but there are some victims who dont seem to grasp the basics ( but I don't think that you are one of them   )

Sorry to be pedantic,  but I hope others read this cobbled together guide, lol

Thanks for the suggestions. What is relevance of Chan and Akande to my defence please? 

Gr1pr

I don't know if it's relevant or not, so if you dont know either,  your first task is to decide if it should be that version that you are using,  or the standard template that you are using,  its one or the other

It should have been thought about before you even started drafting the defence you posted earlier,  which seems to be based more on the Chan and Akande defence,  so paragraphs 5 & 6 are the relevant paragraphs,  not 2) & 3) , followed eventually by paragraphs 13 to 15 possibly being adapted or removed 

Your POC will determine which one is to be used

Coupon-mad

Read theTemplate Defence - first post - which explains which claims need Chan & Akande and it links to the right start if your POC are poor. Have you shown us the POC? 

eliza2811

Coupon-mad said:

Read theTemplate Defence - first post - which explains which claims need Chan & Akande and it links to the right start if your POC are poor. Have you shown us the POC? 

Yes! On page 2 of this thread. Thank you. People commented on why we received it as it doesn't say much. 

Umkomaas

eliza2811 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Read theTemplate Defence - first post - which explains which claims need Chan & Akande and it links to the right start if your POC are poor. Have you shown us the POC? 

Yes! On page 2 of this thread. Thank you. People commented on why we received it as it doesn't say much. 

Looking at the POC, Chan & Akande is certainly in play. 

eliza2811

Another attempt...please give it the once over... I'm fully expecting it to be wrong 

Personal details such as names, claim no and car reg no. will be added into the final emailed version.

Thanks.

1) The Defendant acknowledges receipt of the claim number ******** from the Northampton Civil National Business Centre. Each and every allegation in the Claimant’s statement of case is not admitted, unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

2) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

3) 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.

4)  The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

5) The Defendant 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.

6)  The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

7) 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

8) 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.

9) 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.

Coupon-mad

I don't know why you aren't using the already written Chan & Akande version linked in the first post of the Template Defence?

eliza2811

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

Is this the link please? If not, please can you copy and paste the right link. Thanks.

I'm quite confused with all the different links 😕

Coupon-mad

Of course. The Template Defence thread walks you through it. Very easy.