Civil Enforcement LTD - Small Claims Court

PDUK123

Hi,

I've had a Small Claim issued by CEL. The PoC states that I breached the terms and conditions of their car park. The actual particulars are that I did purchase a ticket for one hour (which I still have) but did so 14 minutes after arriving in the car park (was talking to a work colleague) I left 10 minutes later, so well within the hour I'd paid for.

As per your guides (really helpful thanks), I've completed a Acknowledgement of Service and I think the next stage now is to issue my defence via MCOL. I just want to check this is correct and also that I'll be using CEL reference in this defence. 

Many thanks.

Gr1pr

Correct,  use the new template and follow the new 8 steps 

Coupon-mad

PDUK123 said:

Hi,

I've had a Small Claim issued by CEL. The PoC states that I breached the terms and conditions of their car park. The actual particulars are that I did purchase a ticket for one hour (which I still have) but did so 14 minutes after arriving in the car park (was talking to a work colleague) I left 10 minutes later, so well within the hour I'd paid for.

As per your guides (really helpful thanks), I've completed a Acknowledgement of Service and I think the next stage now is to issue my defence via MCOL. I just want to check this is correct and also that I'll be using CEL reference in this defence. 

Many thanks.

Add to the template, the words you find when you search the forum for:

Hannah Robinson 5 minute rule wonders mine

You may have to remove para 10 to make it fit into the MCOL box but your defence mainly needs to talk about the '5 minute rule' ban.

Then (separately) also raise a complaint with the BPA that CEL are litigating a '5 minute rule' case and that Coupon-mad in MSE told you that Sara Roberts is taking these ones seriously and they are being investigated.

PDUK123

Thanks for this. I have what I think is the correct draft of the template for the defence now. Do I upload this here to check orrrrr?

Will send a complaint to the BPA too.

Gr1pr

You could just show us the few paragraphs that you have altered,  but not the rest of it 

PDUK123

Just to check @Coupon-mad is talking about adding in the 5 minute rule defence. However .... the ticket was purchased 14 minutes after I entered the car park, so does the 5 minute rule defence. 3.1 and 3.2 apply?

PDUK123

Gr1pr said:

You could just show us the few paragraphs that you have altered,  but not the rest of it 

Not much has been altered. I've added in the CEL Defence paragraphs (as CEL is the claimant) and added in my specifics of the defence as detailed in the original post. I'm now just working out if I add the 5 minute rule defence paragraphs or not.

Happy for you to see whatever it is that may cause issue.

PDUK123

OK have gone away and done some research (so for others reading this). The time it takes you to pay for the ticket is irrelevant as long as the duration you purchase covers you for time from arrival to departure.

>> From today (Monday 17 February), drivers using private car parks with camera technology (such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) or CCTV camera monitoring) should no longer receive a parking charge notice as long as they pay in full for the duration of their stay before leaving the car park. << See https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2025/02/private-parking-charges-five-minute-rule/

So based on the suggestion is I add the below paragraphs (copied here for ease of reference)

3. It appears that the Defendant is being penalised for getting entrapped by the infamously hidden '5 minute rule' which has been in the national news. The parking industry Trade Bodies have both recognised - only after the matter was raised in both Houses of Parliament - that such a term is unfair on paying drivers and this conduct has been swiftly banned. To hold a consumer liable for an unknown '5 minute time limit' hidden term, is arguably a 'misleading omission' (ref: the CPUTRs 2008) which is an offence - unfair commercial practice - by this Claimant.

3.1. As well as being an offence, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 a charge arising under a hidden term that places an unfair burden on the consumer is unrecoverable, so the Claimant cannot be heard to say "well it wasn't unfair last year".  That would be absurd, especially given that this same Claimant is the notorious ex-wheel-clamper responsible for the cases highlighted by BBC News (including well-publicised claims against Rosey Hudson - a £1900 claim - and Hannah Robinson - a £11,000 claim) all of which occurred around the same months and under the same "you paid too late" desperately rogue practice approach as in the extant case. This Claimant has reportedly told irate MPs last month that all such cases have been dropped, due to the adverse publicity.  One wonders why they think they can pursue this one.

Is 3.1 relevant, who is the ex-wheel clamper? Is that CEL because if not, I can't have that in there

Gr1pr

The main claimant in the highlighted cases was Excel Parking  not CEL,  although many private parking companies are complicit, almost like a cartel 

Coupon-mad

Just remove this:

"that this same Claimant is the notorious ex-wheel-clamper responsible for"

Also send a formal complaint to CEL - and then to the BPA - that CEL is litigating another 5 minute rule case. The BPA has already got one claim cancelled that I raised with them.