CEL court claim 2025

buzzUK

Ok so the below will cover everything I need?

Your Ref PCN - ************
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: Civil Enforcement

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:
*********
*********
*********

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the £170 debt represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully

Le_Kirk

Only leave in the "seeking debt advice" if you want to delay the process for any reason.

buzzUK

Le_Kirk said:

Only leave in the "seeking debt advice" if you want to delay the process for any reason.

So the guide line letter should be trimmed down to the below? And this just a delay tactic whilst I gather further detail ready for court?

Your Ref PCN - ************
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: Civil Enforcement

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:
*********
*********
*********

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

Kind regards

KeithP

But the stuff you have removed is not the bit that @Le_Kirk mentioned.
You still want answers to those two probing questions, don't you?

Le_Kirk

As @KeithP writes, my advice was to leave out the "30 days hold" UNLESS you want to delay the process for some reason NOT the important part about VAT concerns.

buzzUK

Le_Kirk said:

As @KeithP writes, my advice was to leave out the "30 days hold" UNLESS you want to delay the process for some reason NOT the important part about VAT concerns.

Apologies, it was how I read your response whilst I was at work in a rush, now that makes sense. I will revert back and get this sent out, does anyone know the best way to contact Civil Enforcement? Via email or via their website? I have tried contacting someone who has had dealings them already but not heard back yet.

Le_Kirk

office@ce-service.co.uk

Legal3@ce-service.co.uk

dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk

These have proved useful in the past.

buzzUK

Thanks again @Le_Kirk

buzzUK

Response received:

We refer to your recent correspondence.

1. The £70 is, as set out in the letter before action (LBA), a debt recovery charge. You were given a notice of this charge on the signage at the site, and on the PCN. It is permitted under the British Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice - see paragraphs 20.9 and 24.1b. We also refer to you to appeal cases VCS Ltd v Percy, VCS v Idle & Ward (both heard at Leeds County Court before HHJ Saffman) and Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien, an appeak heard by HHJ Richard Parkes QC, the designated Civil Judge at Salisbury County Court, where the entitlement to charge a debt recover fee was the main issue in the case and the appeal.
2. This is a contractual parking charge, and is payable in the event of a breach of the terms and conditions of parking. It is a long established contractual principle, which was upheld by the Supreme Count in Beavis v Parking Eye. A copy of the Supreme Court summary was included in the LBA for your information. It is, int he works of Lords Neuberger and Sumption, "a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract breaker". It was, in the case of Beavis, held not to fall foul of the penalty rule because "the charge is not out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation".
Yours faithfully
Civil Enforcement Ltd

Coupon-mad

Dear CEL,

If you think you can string a sentence together for a coherent court claim, then do so without further ado, and stop wasting my time.

Not only do you try to mislead me that VCS v Idle & Ward was about what the DLUHC Minister said was the 'extortion' of the fake DRA fee (it wasn't, it was an appallingly tone deaf judgment about a vehicle that broke down and stopped for four seconds) but you then compound that with a laughably inapt half-baked quote from Beavis, where you absolutely shoot yourself in the foot by saying:

 "It is, int he works of Lords Neuberger and Sumption, "a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract breaker".

LOL, yes... it does.  I don't think you understand what you are saying. Did you pass your law degree?  And you can't even get the name of ParkingEye v Beavis the right way round! Oh dear. Jog on. I'm unimpressed.

But perhaps you could explain how you incurred the supposed DRA fee when you didn't use a DRA?  Maybe ask your boss Scott, who used to be Head of Legal at disgraced Wonga? Not something most people would normally boast about on Linkedin, but "you do you".

Yours faithfully,