Need to prepare my defence against Civil Enforcement Limited

JITENNET

I would be grateful for help and advice regarding a claim by Civil Enforcement Limited.
I have done my AOS as advised and now i need to write up my defence.

The PCN states that I was in the Heron car park for 1 hour 34 minutes. Heron Foods in Crewe opened on March 19, 2020, with no car parking restrictions. Since then, I have frequently shopped there and parked my car in their parking area, which has always offered free parking.

I do not recall when Civil Enforcement Limited began managing the parking, and there were no visible signs indicating any restrictions. On January 27, 2024, I parked my car in the Heron Foods parking lot and went shopping in the store, unaware of any parking restrictions. Since the original PCN, I have received numerous letters which I ignored on the advice of a friend. now i come to the court case and now getting panic. there are many template here on forum but i am confused which one to use. Any advice would be greatly appreciated to fight back (Image removed by Forum Team)

Gr1pr

Your picture is not properly redacted,  so needs removing ASAP 

The claim reference number,  the password and the VRM details needed to be covered

I will report your picture to the admins for removal 

The claim is an in house claim by CEL themselves,  no lawyers 

Issue date is 10 July,  so ensure that you have logged into MCOL and completed the AOS stage as described in the second post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum , but you are stating that it's already been completed,  so on what date was it logged   ?  Check and report 

The POC do not specify the actual breach so adapt the new template defence by coupon mad in announcements at the top of the forum and include Chan and Akande and a concise paragraph 3

JITENNET

Thank you for pointing this out. I sincerely apologize for the oversight regarding the image I shared. I understand the importance of protecting sensitive information such as the claim reference number, password, and VRM details. Thank you for asking the admins for removal of picture. I am attaching properly redacted picture. i have logged into MCOL and completed the AOS on 22/07/2025.  Sorry.. i need help to find the  Chan and Akande references. 

Gr1pr

Look at the top thread on this forum by coupon mad,  so above this thread of yours 

Coupon-mad

. i need help to find the  Chan and Akande references.

You don't; the forum has a good search function.

JITENNET

Hi everyone,

I’m planning to upload my defence against Civil Enforcement Limited through the MCOL portal today. I’ve used a template that was recommended here, but I’m unsure if I’ve completed it correctly or if it’s suitable for submission.

Would it be acceptable for me to upload a redacted version of my defence draft here for feedback before I submit it? I want to ensure it’s clear, accurate, and properly formatted.

Thank you for your help!

Coupon-mad

Yes - show us - but first copy & adapt the extra points in the CEL Costco one from the other day!

But please read this message and do the vital,  current Public Consultation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

It's important that the Government hears from people with unfair charges who are facing horrific, scary court claims.

The link shows the two vital points to concentrate on, IMHO:

- banning 'fee' add-ons completely.

- making sure a new SINGLE appeals service replaces POPLA and the IAS which are seen as not fully independent and involved in a 'race to the bottom'.

Click through to the main thread about the Consultation, Do not be deterred by the fact that some questions are for the parking industry only.

We are currently discussing how to respond. Please join us in doing this Consultation. This is your one chance to make a difference re the proper regulation of private parking.

JITENNET

Thank you @Coupon-mad for your response and guidance.

Yes, I will review and adapt the extra points from the CEL Costco defence shared the other day before submitting my draft. 

I’ve also noted your recommendation to participate in the Public Consultation. Thank you for highlighting its importance. I will read through the linked thread and contribute my response to the consultation, focusing on the two key points you’ve mentioned

Thanks again for your help 

my defence draft is as below. please advise

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'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and they were the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle.

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.   The pleaded claim - by the exact same Claimant as in one of the persuasive authorities above - is vague to the point of being embarrassing.  

The Defendant parked at the Heron Foods car park in Crewe on January 27,2024, as a genuine customer of the store.

4.1. Heron Foods in Crewe opened on March 19, 2020, with no car parking restrictions in place.
4.2 The Defendant has regularly shopped at this location since its opening and has always parked in the car park without any issues or charges, as parking was historically free.
4.3 The Defendant was unaware of any change in parking management or restrictions introduced by Civil Enforcement Limited, as there were no visible signs indicating such restrictions at the time of parking.

4.4 The Defendant asserts that there were no clear, prominent, or adequately positioned signs at the car park or in the shop to inform drivers of any parking restrictions or terms and conditions.
4.5 Any signage that may have been installed was insufficient in size, placement, or wording to form a legally enforceable contract between the Claimant and the Defendant.
4.6 The Defendant was therefore not aware of any contractual obligations regarding parking limits or charges on the date in question.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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 ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

8. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (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 deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

9. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

10. 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))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

11. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse tht parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making 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))'.

Le_Kirk

Have you tried that to see if it will comfortably fit in the defence box on MCOL?  If not some of your paragraph #4 could be saved for the witness statement and @Coupon-mad often writes, if it doesn't fit, you could ditch paragraph #10 (your paragraph #11).

Coupon-mad

The Defendant parked at the Heron Foods car park in Crewe on January 27,2024, as a genuine customer of the store.
4.1. Heron Foods in Crewe opened on March 19, 2020, with no car parking restrictions in place.
4.2 The Defendant has regularly shopped at this location since its opening and has always parked in the car park without any issues or charges, as parking was historically free.
4.3 The Defendant was unaware of any change in parking management or restrictions introduced by Civil Enforcement Limited, as there were no visible signs indicating such restrictions at the time of parking.
4.4 The Defendant asserts that there were no clear, prominent, or adequately positioned signs at the car park or in the shop to inform drivers of any parking restrictions or terms and conditions.
4.5 Any signage that may have been installed was insufficient in size, placement, or wording to form a legally enforceable contract between the Claimant and the Defendant.
4.6 The Defendant was therefore not aware of any contractual obligations regarding parking limits or charges on the date in question.

Remove all this (above) because the claim doesn't even plead a town for 'Heron Foods'! Don't fill in their gaps. The Costco one covers this typical problem with CEL claims, which all seem to omit locations right now. Tin pot!

JITENNET

Coupon-mad said:

The Defendant parked at the Heron Foods car park in Crewe on January 27,2024, as a genuine customer of the store.
4.1. Heron Foods in Crewe opened on March 19, 2020, with no car parking restrictions in place.
4.2 The Defendant has regularly shopped at this location since its opening and has always parked in the car park without any issues or charges, as parking was historically free.
4.3 The Defendant was unaware of any change in parking management or restrictions introduced by Civil Enforcement Limited, as there were no visible signs indicating such restrictions at the time of parking.
4.4 The Defendant asserts that there were no clear, prominent, or adequately positioned signs at the car park or in the shop to inform drivers of any parking restrictions or terms and conditions.
4.5 Any signage that may have been installed was insufficient in size, placement, or wording to form a legally enforceable contract between the Claimant and the Defendant.
4.6 The Defendant was therefore not aware of any contractual obligations regarding parking limits or charges on the date in question.

Remove all this (above) because the claim doesn't even plead a town for 'Heron Foods'! Don't fill in their gaps. The Costco one covers this typical problem with CEL claims, which all seem to omit locations right now. Tin pot!

Thank you for your advice and suggestions regarding the defence draft. I’ll make sure to remove the unnecessary details, as you've pointed out. Your guidance is much appreciated.