Civil Enforcement - Court Claim 2025

Gr1pr

Issue date 28th October 2025 by Civil Enforcement,, no breach pleaded AFAIK,  so yes use Chan and Akande defence points etc

Delete the 2 pictures with the Issue Date on show,  because they both also show the claim reference number too

Work2live1

Gr1pr said:

Issue date 28th October 2025 by Civil Enforcement,, no breach pleaded AFAIK,  so yes use Chan and Akande defence points etc

Delete the 2 pictures with the Issue Date on show,  because they both also show the claim reference number too

Thank you had to delete the full posts with claim no on pic as wouldn't let me delete the 1 pic so reposting the other pic on here with POC on  

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for

Civil Enforcement S Wilson defence

or

Civil Enforcement violation date defence

and add in the usual Chan & Akande words as linked in the Template Defence thread.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 28/10/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 02/11/25 and before 16/11/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 01/12/25

Work2live1

I think I'm either thick or reading to much in to this defence. So all I need to do it copy and paste the template defence however #3 add in my own bit (well not my own but see below)

…the Defendant, has little recollection of events considering this was almost a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

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'."

Is this enough? I have looked at the S Wilson signing and have found:

3.8 The individual who signs a statement of truth must print their full name clearly beneath their signature.

which it is not. Should I add this into my defence? 

TIA

Coupon-mad

Yes, add it. That wording is shown in the search results already written in other CEL defences.

Work2live1

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, add it. That wording is shown in the search results already written in other CEL defences.

I have looked all day and cannot find any wording regarding the S Wilson part please help or direct me 

Coupon-mad

But the two search terms I suggested find loads.

Work2live1

Hi please would someone mind looking this end of paragraph 2 and 3 - TIA

The Defendant, has little recollection of events considering this was almost a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

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'."

3.1 Furthermore, the Claim Form issued on the 28th October 2025 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under the Practice Direction 22 – Statements of Truth paragraph 3.8  “The individual who signs a statement of truth must print his full name clearly beneath his signature.” This has not been respected by the Claimants representative.

Gr1pr

Looks OK to me , but renumber 3.1 to 4 and renumber the subsequent paragraphs to 11  ( or 12 if necessary   )