CEL PCN Greenwich High Rd...response to representation

Vestree

My apologies Coupon- mad, I am slightly dyslexic. i struggle a little with navigating the threads, texts, legal terminology. It takes me a while to understand and follow all.

I have the below 10 point paragraphs. Point 2 slightly amended as i have not stated i was the driver. I welcome any comments and if this is inline with the required claim draft.

Many thanks

1. The Claimant's sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Defendant was the driver, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the identity of the driver, or alternatively of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to establish keeper liability.

3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to: (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators. The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called 'extorting money from motorists'. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Coupon-mad

But you didn't read the specific advice I gave that person about some changes needed and the suggested new para 10.

My advice to you was this and I chose my words carefully:

"copy the advice and new para 10 that I wrote about the claim linked by @Gr1pr "

Not 'copy the first one you see there'!

Vestree

Sorry - as i mentioned it's a tricky one to navigate for the lesser literate. I hope that this now works as a draft? I appreciate your patience, help and time on my case

I have…

Removed the delay sentence from paragraph 2

Kept Chan and Akande in paragraph 3

I had already removed “and debt recovery agents (DRAs)” from paragraph 8

Swapped paragraphs 8 and 9

Replaced old paragraph 10 with the new CMA paragraph's points 10 through to 10.2

1. The Claimant's sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all.  The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Defendant was the driver, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the identity of the driver, or alternatively of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to establish keeper liability.

3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.
5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to: (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

9. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators. The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called 'extorting money from motorists'. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

10. It is worth the judge noting that In July 2026 the UK consumer protection law Regulator - the Competition and Markets Authority ('the CMA') - has weighed in. The CMA has just published open letters to the parking industry and government on what they believe are actions that potentially breach consumer law:Open letter to private parking operators

10.1. Paragraph 28 requires Operators to ensure that all substantive correspondence sent to consumers directs them to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice ('the CoP') in order to allow consumers to make better informed decisions on whether to pay ignore or dispute a PCN. 'Substantive correspondence' includes the Notice to Keeper ('NTK') which in the extant case fails to direct the consumer to the CoP. The CMA consider that this is a failure to provide material information ref: section 227(2) of the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

10.1.2. The same criticism - a failure to provide material information - can also be made of the NTK's failure to describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay the parking charges arose. This is equally true of the woeful POC which fails to particularise the alleged breach or the term and nor does it properly identify the private land location.

10.2. With the CMA's Open Letter in mind the Defendant avers that there is a lack of good faith in this Claimant (led by a solicitor and legal team) continuing to churn out boilerplate POC followed (as ever) by a premature prolix Witness Statement which this Defendant will not be intimidated by. This is the same Claimant as in CEL v Chan and they appear to believe they are above the law and above HHJ Murch. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums and template statements of case which fail to comply with Part 16 are good reasons for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

Vestree

Another note - I have ran this case through A.i which has flagged the following amendement on para 10.1. to be more a suited to my NTK as it does contain a passing reference to a Code of Practice, right at the bottom in small print. It claims that the NTK "fails to direct the consumer to the CoP" and is not accurate as written.

Ameneded as follows:

10.1 - Civil Enforcement Ltd operates in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice." Paragraph 28 requires Operators to ensure that all substantive correspondence sent to consumers directs them to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice ('the CoP') in order to allow consumers to make better informed decisions on whether to pay, ignore or dispute a PCN. 'Substantive correspondence' includes the Notice to Keeper ('NTK'), which in the extant case contains only a generic footer reference to 'the British Parking Association's Code of Practice' - the superseded, pre-October 2024 code - rather than the applicable Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice in force at the material time, and provides no explanation, reference or link to assist the consumer in understanding the Code or their rights under it. The CMA consider this type of deficiency to be a failure to provide material information, ref: section 227(2) of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024."

I welcome your thoughts on this if it has a point and the above is preferable in my case? I can send more info that it reads if helpful

Coupon-mad

I like that - nice catch by AI this time!

However defences won't go in on MCOL if they exceed 122 lines which this now might. Let us know…

And MCOL doesn't accept speech marks like this: " so remove this phrase completely, not least because you DO NOT want to be saying that CEL comply with any Code!

Civil Enforcement Ltd operates in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice." 

Oh, and this must be a hyperlink:

Open letter to private parking operators