CCJ Set Aside Question

Coupon-mad

They could still discontinue but if they've provided a WS and paid this hearing fee then expect it to go ahead, so get to court with time to spare to sign in and settle yourself.

Brightonrock123

Hi @Coupon-mad thank you again. I think I have found the correct transcript now from a bit of tracking down. Just to be clear 3.4 of HHJ Moloney transcript I need is:

“So Parking Eye's sole or main income stream is derived from the sums it receives from over-stayers: £50 if paid within 14 days; £85 if paid thereafter (less of course its operating costs including the costs of enforcement“)

So that in itself is suggesting those “fees” are including their enforcement costs?

Brightonrock123

So I’ve spent the evening on this and did request a little bit of help, please can you tell me if this will be suitable to send today?

Claim: Civil Enforcement Limited v Xxxx

Hearing Date: xxxxx

Claim number: xxxxx

1. Introduction

1. This Skeleton Argument is submitted on behalf of the Defendant in response to the Particulars of Claim (PoC) filed by Civil Enforcement Limited, which allege:

 a. The Defendant is indebted for a parking charge issued to Vehicle xxxx at Abbots Wood on 03/09/2023;
  b. The Defendant breached the terms displayed on signage; and
  c. In the alternative, the Defendant is pursued as keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

2. Preliminary Matters

2.1 Defective Particulars of Claim (CPR Part 16)

3. The PoC fail to comply with CPR Part 16 and Practice Direction 16 because they:
  a. do not properly set out the factual matrix or the contract relied upon;
  b. fail to explain how the breach occurred; and
  c. fail to provide clarity on how the claimed amount of £120 arises.

4. These deficiencies are fatal and leave the Defendant unable to respond without guesswork.

5. Authorities:
  a. CEL v Chan - generic pleadings lacking specificity are insufficient;
b. CPMS v Akande - defendants must understand the claim; failure to do so is a fundamental defect.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v2lrfnk408u2qavuokcej/Chan_Akande.pdf?rlkey=o92ljo06yf0ehhyg1j9ayxla2&e=1&st=um09mews&dl=0

2.2 Rights of Audience

6. Civil Enforcement Limited's representative attends via an agency rather than being a solicitor with conduct of the case.

7. Under the Legal Services Act 2007, Schedule 3, only authorised or exempt persons may exercise a right of audience.

8. Authorities:
  a. Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Langley [2026] EWCC 1 - agency advocates without involvement in litigation do not satisfy statutory conditions (CaseMine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/6963ec3876a3d1480bd3aa75);
  b. ParkingEye Ltd v Richie Young [2026] - confirms that agency representatives must demonstrate entitlement (AJH Advocacy link: https://ajh-advocacy.co.uk/2026/04/07/smart-parking-v-young-2026-another-challenge-to-rights-of-audience-under-sch-3-legal-service-act-2007/).

9. The Defendant submits Civil Enforcement Limited's current representation does not comply with statutory requirements.

3. Substantive Submissions

3.1 ADR Mischaracterisation

10. Civil Enforcement Limited suggests that issuing a Letter Before Claim (LBC) constitutes Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

11. Submission: An LBC is a procedural step under the Pre-Action Protocol; it is not ADR. No mediation, negotiation, or independent resolution process was offered.

3.2 Additional £70 Alleged Costs

12. The PoC claims a total of £120. The Defendant submits:
  a. The original PCN was £50;
  b. Costs of enforcement (including LBCs and administrative letters) are already incorporated into the charge;
  c. No realistic additional cost of £70 arises, particularly in bulk, automated, no-win/no-fee recovery processes.

13. Authorities:
  a. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (HHJ Moloney QC, Cambridge County Court) - first instance judgment confirms the parking charge covers administrative and enforcement costs (PDF transcript link: https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Judgment_1905-OCRD_2.pdf);
  

b. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (Supreme Court, 2015) - enforceable charges include legitimate operational costs; additional amounts are not recoverable (Supreme Court link: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0133-judgment.pdf).

14. Submission: The £70 claimed is double recovery and should be disallowed.

3.3 Summary of Substantive Points

15. The Defendant submits:
  a. The PoC fail to disclose a clear cause of action;
  b. The claimed additional costs are unrecoverable; and
  c. Civil Enforcement Limited's representative may lack a right of audience.

16. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out or dismiss the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a).

5. Conclusion

18. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to Strike out or dismiss the claim for defective pleadings, as it is without merit and fails to comply with the CPR. 

19. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. 

The July 2023 Government IA analysis shows (from data from this industry) that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

2”. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court on 14th July, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) payment of costs reserved (£303 Set Aside Fee plus standard witness costs for attendance at Set Aside Hearing), which were agreed on 14/07/2025

(c) my attendance at court today on 14th April 2026 results in a loss of half a day's paid work. Subject to the Paragraphs above I request the following costs be considered at the sum of £543 to cover both attendances and the set aside fee.

(d) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

34. Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg)).

Le_Kirk

I don't know where you got your cases from but it is CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande; see here: -

Chan_Akande

Brightonrock123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81955742#Comment_81955742

wow thanks I have edited.

Coupon-mad

You need to head it:

Skeleton Argument of the Defendant

And I'd remove the conclusion which is fairly out of date and mostly waffle.

Attach your costs assessment sheet.

So that in itself is suggesting those “fees” are including their enforcement costs?

Not just suggesting!

And the Supreme Court said in several paragraphs that the PCN must cover the 'costs of the operation' (HHJ Moloney spelt it out better).

Brightonrock123

thank you so much - I’ll send that off as soon as I am home.

Brightonrock123

I am just going over some details ahead of the hearing tomorrow. One thing I noticed - reference they are using in their witness statement is not the same court/claim reference as that I am using - can this be used in any way?

Coupon-mad

Do you mean they put the wrong Claim number in the WS? I wonder if the court has even matched their statement to the right case!

Brightonrock123

Oh that would be interesting. Yes the reference case number on their witness statement does not match mine. And I checked, mine matches the correct claim!