Civil Enforcement Limited 2025 Parking Ticket - DCB Legal Ltd

Kpmp54

Hi all,

We've received a parking claim dated 23 Jan 2025. We filed a AoS on the 8 Feb 2025. 

Below is the Particular of Claim - It does not state the PCN number so I have no idea what it relates to given the passage of time. I have read CEL have lost in the past where they have not included the correct detail in the PoC (albeit that technicality was related to the reason which is covered under section 3) - could this be the same here?

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle [REDACTED] at Car Park at 237-259 Greenwich High Road, London SE10 8NB.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 10/05/2021.

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Payment Not Made In Accordance With Terms Displayed On Signage.

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 £0.03 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.
   

I have submitted a SAR to CEL but hard to respond when the detail has not been provided in the claim form. 

In any case, I will draft a defence and send here as I have received (and successfully defended) claims previously from CEL in relation to the same location, so comfortable with broadly what it will be. I just wanted to check if the above point should be included in the defence too.

On a completely separate point, the previous successful defence for claims in the same location was related to signage / lighting and lack of landowner consent. Is there any way I can get the detail for those claims and use in an argument here? I was the defendant in the previous claims. 

Thanks in advance

Gr1pr

Did CEL file the claim or use a legal company like DCB Legal   ?

Edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

CEL court claim 2025   ( adding DCB Legal if used  )

The POC issue date may be incorrect,  especially if DCB Legal are involved   ?

Check your previous threads here using your profile to see if they contain the details you asked for 

MET , UKPC & PPS ( LONDON  )

Coupon-mad

Please show us the POC.

And copy any DCB Legal defence that doesn't involve CP Plus or ParkingEye.

KeithP

Kpmp54 said:

We've received a parking claim dated 23 Jan 2025. We filed a AoS on the 8 Feb 2025. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 25th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's that's a little over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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'.

Kpmp54

Hi all - thanks:

POC below:

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle [REDACTED] at Car Park at 237-259 Greenwich High Road, London SE10 8NB.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 10/05/2021.

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Payment Not Made In Accordance With Terms Displayed On Signage.

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 £0.03 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees.

Draft paragraph 3 and 4 below - I haven't received any detail from SAR request (albeit this was sent a week ago) so unable to provide detail in the defence - the below has been prepared on this basis:

3. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and the circumstances of costs that are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. The Defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident, as it allegedly occurred almost fouryears ago in May 2021. The Defendant has no recollection of the events due to the passage of time and cannot confirm the purpose of the vehicle being at the location. Additionally, the Defendant cannot recall receiving any letters or notifications about the alleged breach. 

4. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 10/05/2021" (date of alleged incident). Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper, the rest of paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

Thanks in advance!

Kpmp54

Having actually read more detail on other DCB Legal defences - I update the wording from the above (which also includes POC) - please let me know your thoughts - thanks in advance!

2.     The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 10/05/2021" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4.     The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5.     The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Gr1pr

paragraph 2 needs an ending, as explained in the template defence

Kpmp54

Thanks - I have added updated wording as I cannot recall who was driving.

2.     The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but unable to recall who the driver was due to the passage of time.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 10/05/2021" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4.     The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5.     The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

If this works I’ll send today - thank you! 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, within the Template Defence.