CCJ set aside of CEL claim

Sumsum12

20260328_131233.jpg

Hi, I’ve received the court order letter, which gives me a deadline of 03/04 to file my Defence.

What should I do now?. Do I need to file an Acknowledgment of Service first, or should I go straight to submitting the Defence?

I’ve already prepared a Defence while waiting ( attached below).. Please let me if it is sufficient, or should I strengthen it further by adding more authorities or refining the arguments?

Should I also include any points from my witness statement or skeleton?

Sumsum12

DEFENCE

IN THE COUNTY COURT DARTFORD

Claim No: [XXXX]

Between:

[Claimant] – Claimant

and

[Your Name] – Defendant

1. Introduction

1.1.The Defendant denies liability in full.

1.2.The claim is unclear, inadequately pleaded, and without merit.

1.3.The Defendant has been left to guess the basis of the claim, as the Particulars of Claim (“PoC”) fail to properly explain the alleged breach.

2. Defective Particulars of Claim

2.1 The PoC fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.

2.2 They do not state:

• What specific term was breached;
• How the breach occurred;
• The factual basis of the claim.

2.3 The Defendant has therefore been placed in the unfair position of having to assume the nature of the allegation, believed to relate to an alleged failure to pay for parking on 04/01/[Year].

2.4 This lack of clarity is contrary to proper pleading requirements and renders the claim defective.

2.5 The courts have addressed similar issues in:

Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan – claim struck out where the breach was not properly explained;

CPMS Ltd v Akande – claim dismissed due to insufficient detail.

2.6 The present claim suffers from the same defects and should be dismissed or struck out.

3. No Breach – Payment Was Not Possible

3.1 The Defendant denies any breach of contract.

3.2 On the material date, the Pay & Display machine was defective and not operational.

3.3 The Defendant made genuine attempts to pay, including:

• using the machine (which displayed errors);
• attempting alternative payment methods (unsuccessful).

3.4 The Defendant obtained photographic evidence showing the machine was not working, which has already been presented to the Court and will be relied upon at trial.

3.5 This is not a case of non-payment by choice.

It is a case where payment was not possible due to the Claimant’s own system failure.

3.6 The Claimant cannot rely on a breach caused by its own failure to provide a functioning payment system.

3.7 It would be unjust to impose liability where compliance was prevented by the Claimant’s own equipment.

4. Evidence Supports Defendant’s Position

4.1 The Defendant has already provided evidence of the defective machine.

4.2 This evidence demonstrates:

• system failure;
• the Defendant’s attempt to comply.

4.3 The Claimant has provided no evidence to contradict this.

5. Unlawful and Inflated Sum

5.1 The claim includes an additional £70 beyond the original £100 charge.

5.2 Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the maximum recoverable sum is the amount stated on the Notice to Keeper.

5.3 The additional sum represents an attempt at double recovery and is not recoverable.

6. Background – Set Aside

6.1 The default judgment was previously set aside due to improper service.

6.2 The Defendant had no prior opportunity to respond or defend the claim.

6.3 The principles of fairness and avoidance of injustice, as highlighted in:

• Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr

support the need for proper scrutiny of this claim.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The claim is:

• poorly pleaded;
• unclear in its legal and factual basis;

unsupported by evidence of any enforceable breach.

7.2 The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

• Dismiss the claim in full;
• Disallow the additional £70;
• Award the Defendant costs for unreasonable conduct.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Sumsum12

Also Regarding what " rachity " mentioned about

The Rye & Holywell Mead (including the Lido car park) is subject to local byelaws.

How can I use this in my defence??

As I understand it, the Claimant has failed to clarify what land it is and what legal basis they rely on within the Particulars of Claim. Which might strengthen the argument that I was left to guss the claim as they have done when not specified the alleged breach or the relevant contractual term relied upon.

Is this right??

Shall I add a paragraph after POC argument(paragraph 2 in my defence ) to support my main argument saying that there is lack of clarity in the claim bcs POC fail to identify the legal status of the land or the alleged breach.

Or better just to leave it as it is ..

Thanks in advance..

rachity

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81940821#Comment_81940821

The only 'Belleview' I know of in H/Wyc is a pub some distance away from the Rye. https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g186223-d10150329-Reviews-The_Belle_Vue_Public_House-High_Wycombe_Buckinghamshire_England.html

rachity

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81941113#Comment_81941113

Bellevue, sorry.

I trust you have a copy of the 2018 'Simon Clay v CEL/Fusion' H/Wyc CC case (D9QZ9E8Q) showing the relationship between CEL & Creative? David C appearing on behalf of Mr Clay.

Coupon-mad

The Clay v CEL transcript is on the forum.

For a £35 fee you could put in a £300 counterclaim (plus your fee back, plus interest from the date of the PCN) for data misuse, relying on Simon Clay v CEL and Vidal Hall v Google.

You do that with the defence.

This would be one way of achieving a financial remedy because you have been put to costs for this case which should never have been brought and hasn't even been properly pleaded.

Read counterclaim threads by searching the forum for:

Counterclaim Clay

Le_Kirk

Your statement of truth is out of date (by five years), you need the longer one. Search the forum.

Sumsum12

Thanks Le_Kirk,

Is this longer one ??

"I believe that the facts stated in this Defence 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."

And do I need to sign it at the end ??

Sumsum12

Hi rachity and Coupon-mad,

First thank you both for your help in pointing out the weakness in the POC, that may strengthen my defence.

The “Bellevue” referred to in the Particulars of Claim is understood to mean Bellevue Car Park, Greenwich High Road, London SE10 8NB. I could argue that the Particulars of Claim are unclear, as they fail to properly identify or verify the location, which could refer to multiple places.

However, the Claimant may argue that by including the PCN number in the Particulars of Claim, the location and duration of parking can be readily identified in their website. It is therefore possible that, at a further hearing, a judge may consider that the Claimant has established a proper legal basis, especially when I have guessed and build certain details in my WS/Skeleton/SWS responses.

In relation to a counterclaim, I understand that I would need to clearly found both a legal basis and evidence of loss. As I have not paid the required court fee, I am not in a position to request these fees (and my only potential loss would likely be limited to loss of earnings).

For these reasons, I do not favour pursuing a counterclaim or including matters beyond my legal understanding( which is minimal to non- existent), as this may make it difficult for me to address questions in court. It could also be seen as a weakness and potentially relied upon by the Claimant.

My intention is to focus on submitting a clear and robust defence against the PCN. My aim is to succeed at the next hearing without unnecessarily complicating the matter.

I intend to submit my defence today if it is sufficient as it is by email or, if necessary, tomorrow in person to the court.

rachity

I will bow to @Coupon-mad on how to proceed.

But imho if they have failed to put the exact location in the PoC's, most judges aren't going to be impressed, to say the least.

I posted on this thread as it came up in a search for a specific parking site, that being the Rye Lido car park, High Wycombe. If that doesn't apply here, neither will the byelaws. Apologies if I've misled you guys, but the info may help others who receive pcn's at that site.