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

Coupon-mad

Get your cc provider to refuse/bounce that payment as it was unauthorised and unsupported because this invoice wasn't a fine, offence or penalty.

Secondly, does the claim just say 'CostCo' with no address? Or did you redact that?

Thirdly, change this in the defence:

"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."

to this, and give it a paragraph number (4) and renumber all the rest accordingly:

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 payment 'due date' for the purported £170 is obviously wrong (impossibly early) and the claim doesn't set out any heads of cost nor even why the Defendant is liable and by what conduct or rule of law. The concept of 'hirer liability' is not automatic and this Claimant failed to comply with paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'). Furthermore, the Claim merely states the location as 'Costco' which operates around 30 outlets in the United Kingdom. The Defendant and family use Costco stores on occasion and the Defendant has a Blue Badge which is always displayed correctly. The Defendant cannot reasonably be expected to guess the location and unspecified allegation where none (and no details nor basis of claim) are pleaded.

And then change what you had as 9 but will become para 10 (once renumbered), to this:

10.  Pursuant to Sch4 of the 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))'. Even in the (denied) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA for hirer liability, there is no liability law relating to admin or purported late fees. The added £70 is not contractual; the increase is a form of illegal drip-pricing, unknown to drivers and not specified on this Claimant's poor signs, the terms of which are never displayed in blue badge bays. The added £70 isn't 'unpaid parking related charges' (see the POFA) and this Claimant did not even use a third party DRA so no additional costs were incurred before litigation.

Doublespresso

Thanks for the above, I've just made a claim on the CC through my bank disputing the Car Hire "admin charge", they will come back to me in the next few days.
as for the POC, yes it simply says Costco, no address! It's crazy how opportunistic these companies are and not even good at it.

I will prepare the defence tomorrow and will report back, thanks again.

Doublespresso

I've submitted my defence, pasted below, hopefully it will be of help to others. FYI it was just within the permitted number of lines (1 line left)

I didn't make a counter claim as I'm finding al this very stressful, although, now, on reflection, I kind of regret that I didn't, just to bring the hearing at a court near me. Is it too late now?

Is this case likely to be struck off by the court or should I expect to go onto the next stage?

======

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'.

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 payment 'due date' for the purported £170 is

obviously wrong (impossibly early) and the claim doesn't set out

any heads of cost nor even why the Defendant is liable and by what

conduct or rule of law. The concept of 'hirer liability' is not

automatic and this Claimant failed to comply with paragraphs 13

and 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

('POFA'). Furthermore, the Claim merely states the location as

'Costco' which operates around 30 outlets in the United Kingdom.

The Defendant and family use Costco stores on occasion and the

Defendant has a Blue Badge which is always displayed correctly.

The Defendant cannot reasonably be expected to guess the location

and unspecified allegation where none (and no details nor basis of

claim) are pleaded.

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 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))'. Even in the

(denied) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA for hirer

liability, there is no liability law relating to admin or

purported late fees. The added £70 is not contractual; the

increase is a form of illegal drip-pricing, unknown to drivers and

not specified on this Claimant's poor signs, the terms of which

are never displayed in blue badge bays. The added £70 isn't

'unpaid parking related charges' (see the POFA) and this Claimant

did not even use a third party DRA so no additional costs were

incurred before litigation.

11. 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))'.

Coupon-mad

Very good CEL defence example for others to copy & adapt to suit.

If it does get struck out, it's well after the Mediation call stage. Not this Summer!

And please stick around this month to do the Public Consultation about private parking firms and banning the 'debt recovery/admin' fees, etc.

See the thread about it. Closes in 4 weeks.

Doublespresso

Thanks for al your help Coupon-mad.
As for the Public Consultation I'll definitely stick around and follow the thread.