Civil Enforcement LTD defence statement

Enzo123

Hi Guys,

I have been issued a claim from Civil Enforcment limited. 

Claim was issued 28/10/2025

AOS was submitted on MCOL 02/11/2025

Particulars of claim:

Claim for money relating to a parking charge for breach of contract terms/conditions for parking in a private car park (cp) managed by claimant .  Drivers may only park pursuant to the terms and conditions displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/parking. ANPR cameras or manual patrols monitor vehicles entering/exiting the CP and TC breaches. Charges of £170 claimed. Violation date: 27/08/24.

I would really appreciate some help completing my defence, particularly paragraph 3. I have already appealed to both the Pub and the claimant, Pub said it was out of their hands and Civil enforcement denied my appeal.  

---------------------------------------------------------------

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. In response to the allegation set out in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim, namely that the Defendant is liable for “a parking charge for breach of contract terms and conditions for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant, where drivers may only park pursuant to the terms and conditions displayed and agreed upon entry,” the Defendant denies that any such contract was formed.

A significant number of the Claimant’s signs are positioned on the south-facing wall at a height and location such that they can be, and frequently are, obscured by vehicles parked directly in front of them. The Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice, Schedule 1 (Signage), expressly provides that “Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to the car park. Otherwise, the signage within the car park must be such as to be obvious to the motorist.”

The Claimant’s signage fails to satisfy these requirements. If a single large vehicle is capable of obstructing a sign entirely by virtue of parking in front of it, the signage cannot reasonably be described as “obvious” to motorists, nor can it be said that the terms and conditions were adequately brought to the Defendant’s attention. Accordingly, the Claimant has not met the standards mandated by its own accredited trade association, and no contract capable of giving rise to the alleged charge was formed.

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))'.

1505grandad

You need the Chan and Akande cases to be included.

Also who and how was the claim form signed i.e. perhaps S Wilson?

Coupon-mad

Given the breach is not specified in the POC, you were meant to use the Chan & Akande alternative paragraph version linked in the Template Defence thread first post.

Enzo123

Coupon-mad said:

Given the breach is not specified in the POC, you were meant to use the Chan & Akande alternative paragraph version linked in the Template Defence thread first post.

Ah I see, ok thanks! So just swap out my own para 3 for chan & akande and you think it’s good to go?

Enzo123

1505grandad said:

You need the Chan and Akande cases to be included.

Also who and how was the claim form signed i.e. perhaps S Wilson?

I didn’t see a signature on the claim form? 

1505grandad

"I didn’t see a signature on the claim form? "

On the back at the top?

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 28/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 01/12/25

Enzo123

Le_Kirk said:

With an issue date of 28/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 01/12/25

Thanks for working that out, I wasn’t 100% sure so was aiming to issue by COP today! 

Enzo123

1505grandad said:

"I didn’t see a signature on the claim form? "

On the back at the top?

I’ll double check again tonight, what is the significance of who has signed it though? Just out of curiosity.

Le_Kirk

Enzo123 said:

1505grandad said:

"I didn’t see a signature on the claim form? "

On the back at the top?

I’ll double check again tonight, what is the significance of who has signed it though? Just out of curiosity.

If it isn't signed by a solicitor you can use a defence that refers to Mazur v Speechlys

1505grandad

Also:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81743919/#Comment_81743919

"Plus the usual extra bit about a claim form signed with an initial 'S Wilson' (instead of full name of signatory) also breaching the CPRs but you'll have found that already in another CEL thread because that point is always added for their claims."