Urgent Advice Needed: Civil Enforcement Ltd Claim Form – How to Knock them out?!

jarq

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some advice regarding a parking charge notice I’ve received from *Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL)*. Here’s the situation:
 
- I recently received a *Claim Form* (25/01/25) related to an alleged parking contravention from *2021* at a *KFC parking lot*. According to them, I exceeded the maximum free parking allowance. - The issue is that I *never received any prior correspondence* about this until now—no initial notice, no reminders, nothing.
 - A couple of months after the alleged incident, I *sold the car* and moved out of the address linked to the vehicle. This explains why I didn’t receive any earlier letters.
 - After receiving the Claim Form, I contacted *DCB Legal Ltd* (who were mentioned in the correspondence). They transferred the case back to *Civil Enforcement Limited* (I believe, because the claimant and the address to send documents differ). - I got a confirmation of contact and requested further details (29/01/25), but so far, I haven’t received any response.

Here are the *Particulars of Claim* from the form:

**Particulars of Claim**
 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle REG NUMBER at [street name, postcode]
 2. The PCN(s) were issued on 24/01/2021.
 3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Maximum Free Parking Allowance Exceeded – NO Parking Between 11PM – 10AM.
 4. In the alternative, the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4. **AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS**
 1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
 2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
 3. Costs and court fees.

I did submit AoS 3 days ago.

jarq

And here is my defence:

1. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim and puts the Claimant to strict proof of its claim.
 2. The Defendant was not aware of the alleged parking charge issued on 24/01/2021 at [street name] until receiving the Claim Form. The Defendant changed address after this date and did not receive any previous correspondence from the Claimant or any debt collection agency regarding this matter.
 3. The Claimant has failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. While the Claimant eventually obtained the Defendant’s correct address, this was only at the point of issuing legal proceedings. Prior to this, the Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to contact the Defendant at their new address, depriving them of the opportunity to engage in early resolution. The Claimant did not issue a Letter Before Claim to the correct address as required under the protocol, nor did they provide sufficient opportunity for the Defendant to respond before court action was taken.
 4. After receiving the Claim Form, the Defendant contacted DCB Legal Ltd on 29/01/2025 to request a copy of the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and further details of the alleged contravention. DCB Legal Ltd confirmed receipt of the request but failed to provide any response or documentation to date. The Claimant’s refusal to provide key documents demonstrates a failure to engage in reasonable pre-litigation conduct. The Defendant asserts that they have been denied a fair opportunity to assess the claim before court proceedings were initiated.
 5. The Defendant was no longer the owner or keeper of the vehicle after 17/06/2021. The Defendant has proof that the vehicle in question was sold on 17/06/2021 and that they moved out of their address on 26/07/2021. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that any correspondence regarding the alleged debt was sent to the Defendant’s correct address after this date. This further undermines the Claimant’s case, as they failed to make reasonable efforts to confirm the Defendant’s correct contact details before issuing proceedings.
 6. The Claimant’s claim lacks clarity and supporting evidence. Specifically, the Claimant has failed to provide: a. A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 24/01/2021, b. Clear photographic evidence of the Defendant’s vehicle allegedly breaching the stated terms, c. Proof that the Defendant was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, d. A copy of the terms and conditions on the signage as they appeared at the time, e. A breakdown of how the amount of £170 has been calculated and justified.
 7. The Defendant denies entering into any contractual agreement with the Claimant. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant exceeded the Maximum Free Parking Allowance and parked during a restricted period (11 PM – 10 AM). However, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that: a. The signage at the site was clear, prominent, and compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) or International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, b. The signage was legible, adequately lit, and unambiguous at the time of the alleged contravention, c. The signage clearly stated that a charge of £170 would be incurred for a breach, d. The Claimant had legal authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at the site.
 8. The Claimant’s reliance on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 is disputed. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has complied with the statutory requirements to transfer liability to the registered keeper. The Claimant must provide evidence that: a. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued and served within the required PoFA timeframe, b. The NtK contained all the mandatory wording as required by PoFA Schedule 4, c. The Claimant complied with all procedural requirements of PoFA 2012 before pursuing the Defendant as the keeper.
 9. The amount claimed is excessive and disproportionate. The Claimant is demanding £170, which is significantly higher than the standard PCN amount of £100 and appears to include arbitrary and inflated fees. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that these additional costs were contractually agreed or lawfully incurred.
 10. The Claimant’s claim for interest at 8% per annum is unreasonable. The Defendant disputes the application of s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 to this case, as the alleged debt is not based on a formal credit agreement but rather a disputed private parking charge.
 11. The Defendant asserts that this claim should be struck out on the following grounds: a. The Claimant’s failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, b. The Claimant’s failure to provide sufficient evidence of the alleged breach, c. The excessive and disproportionate nature of the amount claimed, d. The lack of legal standing to enforce this charge.
 12. The Defendant requests that the court dismisses the claim in its entirety and considers awarding costs to the Defendant for the time and effort spent defending this matter.

Is it good enough?

Coupon-mad

The case hasn't been handed back by DCB Legal. They filed this claim.

That's not the usual defence we recommend.

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 (within the 30 paragraph Template Defence) looks similar to the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

No need for more detail EXCEPT I think your paragraph 3 is useful, so you could add it as 3.1 underneath the recommended para 3.

Then the whole template defence WHICH WE BEG POSTERS NOT TO POST IN FULL HERE (you've no idea how tiresome it is to be constantly asked to check our own work!).

DCB Legal will discontinue in 6 months time, before the hearing.

KeithP

You say "I recently received a *Claim Form* (25/01/25)...".

Can you now please tell us the Issue Date on that Claim Form?

jarq

The issue date is 22/01/25

KeithP

jarq said:

The issue date is 22/01/25

jarq said:
I did submit AoS 3 days ago.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

jarq said:

The issue date is 22/01/25

Done your defence now?  Dead easy.  No risk and you won't pay a penny.

jarq

Yes, I did receive confirmation that my defence was received. I followed the advice provided in the link from previous posts to use the defence. I only added the third and fourth points because I can prove them and I did change date.