Civil Enforcement court stage

Gr1pr

You ignore powerless debt collectors letters 

You do not ignore a Letter of Claim or a Court claim 

NuckinFutz

I've now received a LBC (Civil Enforcement call it Letter Before Action, but I assume that's the same thing).

The current best advise is to send an email based on the template in Post 2 and not fill ou any of the supplied forms?

Thanks in advance.

Gr1pr

Correct, email the LoC response template ( no form filling. )

NuckinFutz

Hi, I've now received a court letter.

My course of action is complete the MCOL and use the template defence and amend para 3?

The PoC is:

Defendant
Particulars of Claim
Claim for money relating to a Parking Charge (PC) for breach of contract
terms (TC) agreed upon entry/parking in private car park (CP) managed by
Claimant. PC issued for breach of the following TC:
Failed to obtain a permit in accordance with the notified terms
PC: Ref**********
Violation date: ********** Pay due: *************
Time in: **** Time out: ****
Vehicle reg mark: ******** CP site:- Hamble Sports Complex
Total amount due- £170.00
Pay: www.ce-service.co.uk or call 01614515151
The Claimant claims the sum of £191.98 for the unpaid parking charge inc
£21.98 interest under S.69 of the CCA 1984 Rate: 8.00% pa from due date
to- 16/07/26
Same rate to Judgment or sooner payment at daily rate of- £0.04
Total debt and interest due- £191.98

Thanks

Le_Kirk

What is the date of issue of the N1SDT claim form?

NuckinFutz

@Le_Kirk I'll double check when I'm back home this eve, but pretty sure it was 17th July.

NuckinFutz

How is this for para 3:

3. The vehicle was parked at a leisure centre car park where authorised users are permitted to park subject to entering the vehicle registration number into a terminal located within the premises. The Defendant has contemporaneous evidence, including an email receipt, demonstrating that the vehicle was present for the legitimate purpose of using the leisure centre facilities on the material date.

NuckinFutz

Should I add this?

The Claimant alleges that no record exists of the vehicle registration having been entered into the terminal. The Defendant is unable to admit that allegation and the Claimant is put to strict proof that the terminal was fully operational, accurately recorded all entries, and retained complete records on the material date.

Le_Kirk

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82083430#Comment_82083430

With an issue date of 17/07/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 05/08/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 19/08/26

Coupon-mad

I'd add a word:

"…strict proof that the terminal was prominent, fully operational, …"

And due to these facts:

"The rejection letter does not offer anything other than the standard £60 reduction from £100 if paid early.  They state there are no records of my reg or anything resembling my reg in the records"

Add:

This claim is effectively making an allegation of failure to enter a VRM correctly (or at all) on a screen system that does not print receipts. As such, there is no proof of consumer error but best, this is a 'major keying error' allegation and the C should have accepted the appeal and offered settlement at £20 as required in the Code of Practice. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued an Open Letter to Private Parking Operators on July 16, 2026, explicitly highlighting that parking charges should be reduced to £20 under circumstances such as a patron of a gym mistyping or missing submitting a vehicle registration number. This is far more likely to be a system failure but the CMA's intervention highlights widespread failures by private parking firms to handle motorist appeals fairly and transparently.