Civil Enforcement Limited Parking Fine - County Court Claim Issued

Lakshmila

Hi @Coupon-mad - OK thank you - TOMORROW! eek. So I have acknowledged service - Next step - template. Will attempt it now. 

Lakshmila

@Coupon-mad, @Car1980

Quick question though may seems stupid. In the section I need to change (3) The template states:  

'3.  EITHER:

IF THE POC FAIL TO STATE THE BREACH (e.g. Civil Enforcement Ltd, Gladstones & Moorside cases currently all fail to specify an allegation) BRIEFLY REFER TO CEL v CHAN & CPMS v AKANDE. SEE LINK BELOW. This is all you need unless you have something very important to add, such as being a blue badge holder when shopping at a retail park, or were charging an EV (no contractual signs at those bays) or that you were a tenant/owner with rights or an expectation to park at a residential site:

 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81571257/#Comment_81571257

 OR

 If they DO state the breach in the POC (in-house ParkingEye claims, also BW Legal and most DCB Legal cases) then respond to the allegation made. Add BRIEF details as para 3, e.g.

 - if you didn't get any letters or it was years ago & you can't recall if you were driving, say that. ONLY IF TRUE 

- you appealed and they refused it?

- the machines or app weren't working?

- was it a double dip ANPR error?

- or a keying error, were you staff/lived there with a right to park 

- saw no signs because they were sparsely placed or it was dark?

Looking at the POC in my images above. In your opinions Does the POC state the breach adequatel?. If so I presume I will be using the defence that i saw no signs in the dark and the signs and parking bays are ambiguous.

Thanks again

Lakshmila

I have used the template suggested with only adjustment being to para 3. Is this correct based on the above information. Has anyone used this? or have any comments or suggestions? 

-------

Defence 

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 registered keeper.

 

3. At all times the Defendant intended to comply with relevant parking restrictions. The visit was intended as a drop off only for the Defendant’s son but due to unforeseen circumstances the defendant had to wait longer than anticipated. At the time of the alleged parking infringement (23:08 – 00:32) the car park was very dark. There is no street lighting present at the relevant Claimant’s property, namely Pangs Courthouse, and the Defendant was unable to ascertain that payment for parking was required. On a subsequent visit to the car park the Defendant was able to see small signs on the wall. The signage is woefully inadequate with no lighting nearby and with very small print. The Defendant submits images as evidence of this inadequacy. Additionally, the parking bays in this section of the car park are managed by multiple companies with no clear demarcation between them.

For the reasons above, the Defendant submits that no liability arises and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

 

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))'.

 -------

Lakshmila

Rewritten Para 3

3. At all times the Defendant intended to comply with relevant parking restrictions. The visit was intended as a drop off only for the Defendant’s son but due to unforeseen circumstances the defendant had to wait longer than anticipated. At the time of the alleged parking infringement (23:08 – 00:32) the car park was very dark. There is no street lighting present at the relevant Claimant’s property, namely Pangs Courthouse. Additionally, the parking bays in this section of the car park are managed by multiple companies with no clear demarcation between them. Subsequently the Defendant was unable to ascertain that payment for parking was required.

On a subsequent visit to the car park the Defendant was able to see small signs on the wall representing the areas managed by the Claimant, however the relevant signage is woefully inadequate for the following reasons:

a)        The Claimant’s signs are small in size and with small print being difficult to see and/or read without nearby lighting.

b)        The signs are only present on some parking bays whereas other adjacent private parking bays each have their own signage.

c)        The signs are very similar colours and design to the signs for the adjacent parking bays managed by Euro Car Parks.

d)        There is no clear distinction between the parking bays managed by other companies (including Euro Car Parks plus others) and those managed by the Claimant.

 

The Defendant submits images as evidence of this inadequacy.

For the reasons above, the Defendant submits that no liability arises and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

1505grandad

You need the Chan and Akande para.

Coupon-mad

TODAY by 4pm.

Not tomorrow. I posted that reply before midnight.

Lakshmila

Dropped the 'drop off' bit as even though true is irrelevant.

3. At all times the Defendant intended to comply with relevant parking restrictions. At the time of the alleged parking infringement (23:08 – 00:32) the car park was very dark. There is no street lighting present at the relevant car park, namely Pangs Courthouse. Additionally, adjacent parking bays in this car parking area are managed by multiple companies, with no clear demarcation between them. Subsequently the Defendant was unable to ascertain that payment for parking was required.

On a subsequent visit to the car park the Defendant was able to see small signs on the wall representing the areas managed by the Claimant, however the Claimant's signage is woefully inadequate for the following reasons:

a)        The Claimant’s signs are small in size, with small print making them difficult to see and/or read at night without good lighting. There is no incidental street lighting close enough and no direct or purpose built lighting to aid visibility of the signs.

b)        The signs are only present on some parking bays whereas other adjacent private parking bays each have their own signage.

c)        The signs are very similar in both colour and design to the signs for the adjacent parking bays managed by Euro Car Parks. At first glance they appear to represent the same company, leading to confusion.

d)        There is no clear distinction between the adjacent parking bays, managed by other companies (including Euro Car Parks and others), and those managed by the Claimant. This makes it impossible to ascertain which parking bays the Claimant’s signs represent, and therefore impossible to know if payment is required and if so, which company to pay for parking.

The Defendant submits images as evidence of this inadequacy.

For the reasons above, the Defendant submits that no liability arises and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim. the Defendant submits that no liability arises and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

Lakshmila

This? 

Do I add at the end?

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'."

Lakshmila

@1505grandad @Coupon-mad

Suggested I use the Chan etc para:

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'."

Where do you think it should go in my defence? (see full so far in next comment)



--------

Lakshmila

Full Defence - the only items changed from template in bold:

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 registered keeper.

---

3. At all times the Defendant intended to comply with relevant parking restrictions. At the time of the alleged parking infringement (23:08 – 00:32) the car park was very dark. There is no street lighting present at the relevant Claimant’s property, namely Pangs Courthouse. Additionally, the parking bays in this section of the car park are managed by multiple companies with no clear demarcation between them. Subsequently the Defendant was unable to ascertain that payment for parking was required.

On a subsequent visit to the car park the Defendant was able to see small signs on the wall representing the areas managed by the Claimant, however the relevant signage is woefully inadequate for the following reasons:

a)        The Claimant’s signs are small in size and with small print being difficult to see and/or read without nearby lighting.

b)        The signs are only present on some parking bays whereas other adjacent private parking bays each have their own signage.

c)        The signs are very similar in both colour and design to the signs for the adjacent parking bays managed by Euro Car Parks. At first glance they appear to represent the same company, leading to confusion.

d)        There is no clear distinction between the adjacent parking bays, managed by other companies (including Euro Car Parks and others), and those managed by the Claimant. This makes it impossible to ascertain which parking bays the Claimant’s signs represent, and therefore impossible to know if payment is required and if so, which company to pay for parking.

The Defendant submits images as evidence of this inadequacy.

For the reasons above, the Defendant submits that no liability arises and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

---

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))'.