Help needed: Blue Badge holder parked in the appropriate bay at Costco's, Civil Enforcement Ltd

Doublespresso

I've read the newbies thread and al the various posts and I'm overwhelmed and a little anxious..
Apologies in advance if I did something wrong.., please be kind, thanks



a summary of events:
- 16th Jan - I parked a hired car at Costco's in Wembley and parked in the correct Blue Badge bay, duly displaying my Blue Badge with clock etc.
- To be honest, I didn't even think there were restrictions as the bay was within the Costco area and it was clearly marked for Blue Badge holders. I didn't notice any signage.
I went shopping and I stayed there for around 3.5Hours in total.
- On 30th Jan, I receive an email from the car hire company with the NtK attached saying I committed a parking violation and charged my card £65 as "admin fee" and they passed my details to CEL.
- I wrote an email to CEL giving my work address for correspondence and dancing any liability (used the template for hired cars, etc, I found here)
- They ignored my email and I now received a Claim Form dated 17th July.
- I filed an acknowledgment (AoS) on 23rd July via MCOL and now I need to prepare my defence and this is where I'm stuck and anxious..

My understanding is that I need to write the additional initial paragraphs and follow the instructions at the end re the rest of the defence. I'd really appreciate any help with the following questions:

- Am I following this correctly? When is the latest I can submit my defence?
- If yes, what do I write in paragraph 6? (Assuming this is the only paragraph I have to amend)
- Given the length of the defence willI have problems submitting online in view of the word limit?

Thanks in advance!!


++++

DEFENCE

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: Chan_Akande

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

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. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

6. (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)

7. (Then put in para 4 of the template defence onwards here and re-number all paragraphs below this. Your defence will exceed 30 paragraphs). 

 

Coupon-mad

That's not the current template defence.

See the top of the forum.

Doublespresso

Oh..sorry, I must have missed that! Thanks Coupon-mad

is it this one? 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80205077/#Comment_80205077

GrumpyDil

Have you asked the hire company to confirm in the contract where exactly it states they can charge you 65.00 for receiving and responding to a speculative invoice? If they can't show you something that specifically covers that I would be demanding they return that 65.00.  Note, it is not a fine or penalty charge notice but simply a speculative invoice.

Gr1pr

Yes it is that template in that link 

Adapt paragraph 2 & 3

The POC doesn't appear to have the alleged breached pleaded ( regardless of the NTK PCN letter   )

Le_Kirk

I think the OP can use Chan & Akande as the POC are sparse and do not plead the breach.

Castle

The payment due date is obviously wrong and the claim doesn't set out why the Defendant is liable, such as Driver or RK or Hirer.

Coupon-mad

Doublespresso said:

Oh..sorry, I must have missed that! Thanks Coupon-mad

is it this one? 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80205077/#Comment_80205077

Yes, which walks you through the Chan & Akande version with a link to it.

Doublespresso

1) Thanks Coupon-mad, I think I got it now
2) Thanks Gr1pr Le_Kirk and Castle you all really helped me in clarifying my thoughts!
3) @ GrumpyDil the car hire in question (not sure if I can "name and shame" here) simply sent me a letter saying that it's in their t&c and that they will charge me £68 (not £65 - sorry) using the CC they held as a deposit. They also say that the charge is non refundable even if the PCN is revoked/cancelled. Btw I have since found out that they have a terrible reputation at giving customers a hard time with additional charges etc.

Please see my new defence below, not sure about the Blue Badge bit in par 3:

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 to admit that they were the hirer 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'. 

Furthermore, I believe that the claimant refers to a case whereby the car is question was parked at a disabled parking bay at a Costco car park, with a Blue Badge displayed correctly while my family went shopping there. My understanding is that, in any event, there are no contractual signs at those bays.

 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 ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. 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'.

8. 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'.

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))'. 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.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that 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))'.

Doublespresso

Here's the 1st page of the email from the car Hire Company 

Car1980

It's not an offence, penalty or fine in law.

Tell them you're not liable and there is nothing in the signed and agreed T&Cs about invoices from private companies.

Say they you are currently defending a court claim against CE and once it has concluded you will claim against them, bolstered by the evidence fron the court claim.