CNBC Claim for Parking Ticket

Daviboy1986

Hi all,

I am new to forum but found reading through the existing threads really useful, thank you. My case I believe should hopefully be quite simple (if that's possible!)

I received a CNBC claim form on the 5th March 2025, I have been away so only actually got the letter on the 11th March. Elms Legal are pursuing a claim on behalf of Excel Parking Services for a parking ticket on 20/02/22. The claim is made due to not displaying a valid ticket/permit which it states is in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park. The car park is The Pitch, Media City in Manchester. EL are claiming £325 in their own separate letter however the CNBC claim for is £170 claim, £35 Court Fee, £50 legal costs which is £255? 

A couple of points - I never received any correspondence due to me moving house 3 days later. (I am aware there is an obligation to update my details with the DVLA which I have now done.  I have already been severely punished by the courts for a separate speeding offence last year of which I am still paying back the fine!) 

Second point is I have used this car park many times before and have used their parking app Cashless Connect to pay for my parking which doesn't produce a physical ticket to display. On this occasion, I have 3 separate transactions in my bank account to Cashless Connect for parking on that day therefore I believe I have paid for my parking. 

I sent an email to EL requesting proof of the claim and advising the above and they have sent me back images of my vehicle at the time which doesn't show a ticket. They haven't acknowledged the payment part.

I have completed an acknowledgement of service on 13th March and intend to defend the claim. I have read the newbies thread and am fairly comfortable drafting the DS - example from Coupon Mad in the thread.

Questions I have are do I just add the details of the above as paragraph 3 and then include all paragraphs after this and email to the CNBC Claim Response email? Is there anything else I should be doing that will help my case? Any help would be appreciated. 

Gr1pr

Post the issue date from the top right of the claim form,  not the date you received it, the received date is not relevant 

Post a redacted picture of the POC details after hiding the VRM details first 

@Shahib_02 defence,  suitably adapted of course 

Post your proposed draft of paragraphs 2 & 3 below too

Coupon-mad

EL are claiming £325 in their own separate letter however the CNBC claim for is £170 claim, £35 Court Fee, £50 legal costs which is £255? 

Show us both please.

Daviboy1986

Thank you. Sorry the issue date is the 5th March. Letters attached. 

I haven’t drafted my my paragraphs yet, was looking for some guidance on what I should include, if possible.

Coupon-mad

Daviboy1986 said:

Thank you. Sorry the issue date is the 5th March. Letters attached. 

I haven’t drafted my my paragraphs yet, was looking for some guidance on what I should include, if possible. 

Thanks. £325, eh?

Great evidence of Elms Legal lying about the amount of the claim, one day after issuing it for £255 including the real and the fake 'costs'.
You should include this in your paragraph 3 and state that this is wholly unreasonable conduct.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 7th April 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over two weeks 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'.

Daviboy1986

Thank you for all of your help.  

These are the paragraphs I intend to use in the DS. Allowing for the advised paragraphs 1-4 in the newbies thread, these come in at paragraph 5 & 6:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.   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. The defendant is currently in receipt of a Civil National Business Centre claim form dated 5th March 2025 which claims a balance of £255.00 whilst also in receipt of a payment claim from Elms Legal on behalf of the Claimant on the 6th March 2025, claiming costs of £325.00. This is totally unreasonable conduct. The vehicle however is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

6.  Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is accepted, the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach of the terms and conditions. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms, given the Defendants method of payment for parking services at this time, was by using the advertised offer of an online payment through the advised payment provider, which does not produce a valid ticket. Furthermore, 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.

Followed by paragraphs 7 onwards.

Is there anything further I should be including? 

Thank you. 

1505grandad

" Allowing for the advised paragraphs 1-4 in the newbies thread,"

Just checking  -  what are you including in paras 1-4?

Daviboy1986

Sorry I'm not sure how to pin the posts. 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

3. 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. 

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'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities

Daviboy1986

This is the advice I followed from the thread.

Use the Template Defence shown in the post below...

...unless you have a CEL (in-house only), Elms Legal, Gladstones or Moorside Legal claim (and also specifically for DCB Legal claims for ParkingEye or Group Nexus / CP Plus) in which case the start should include the extra wording and link to CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

Coupon-mad

Argggh so sorry! My fault. Bin that. I've just edited the link to remove Elms Legal because you can see the POC does include the breach.