CCJ Claim from a private car park

elm64

First time going through this and I would really appreciate some help with my County Court defence.

Is this defence ready to file, or are there any suggestions or improvements you would recommend?

The claim issue date is 27 November 2025. I have filed an Acknowledgment of Service, which gives me 28 days to submit my defence. I intend to file the defence on or before 22 December 2025.

Thank you in advance for your help — it is greatly appreciated.

Claimant: XYZ
Defendant: [Full Name]
Claim Number: [Claim Number]

1. The Parties

1.1. The Defendant is the registered keeper on the material date.
1.2. The Claimant is XYZ, a private parking company.

2. Background

2.1. The claim arises from an alleged parking contravention at YYY, on 11 July 2024.

2.2. The Claimant alleges a stay of 17 minutes, recorded via ANPR cameras.

2.3. The Defendant denies liability.

3. Landowner Rules – 15-Minute Grace Period

3.1. The Church car park rules (PDF attached) expressly allow a 15-minute grace period.

3.2. The Defendant’s stay falls within this grace period, when measured in accordance with both the rules and mandatory industry guidance.

4. Consideration Period – Code of Practice

4.1. Under the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice:

“A minimum of 5 minutes must be allowed for a motorist to enter a car park, read the terms and conditions, and decide whether to stay or leave without incurring a parking charge.”

4.2. The consideration period applies at the start of a stay and is separate from the grace period.

4.3. Combined with the 15-minute grace period, the Defendant’s stay of 17 minutes does not constitute a breach.

5. Signage – Non-compliance with Standards

5.1. The signage at the site is  poorly positioned (Attached exbit02), and not at the height of eye level (i.e. very low level) for parking motorists.

5.2. This fails to meet the BPA/IPC guidance on signage, which requires terms to be clearly visible and legible before a motorist parks.

5.3. Insufficient/Poor Signage: One sign at the entrance isn't enough; signs must be visible and readable from parking bays, with terms clearly stated to form a valid contract.

5.5. Consequently, the Defendant could not reasonably have known the terms, and any purported PCN is unenforceable.

6. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

6.1    Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023)

6.1.1 In CEL v Chan, the court struck out a claim due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.7.5. The court held that the particulars of claim must specify the conduct constituting the breach, which was not done in that case.

6.1.2 Similarly, in this case, the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach, rendering the claim defective and liable to be struck out.

 

6.2    CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024)

6.2.1    In CPMS v Akande, the court dismissed a parking claim due to the Claimant’s failure to specify the nature of the breach in the particulars of claim. The court held that the Defendant must be able to understand the case against them, which was not possible in that case.

6.2.2 The same applies here. The Claimant has failed to specify the nature of the alleged breach, and the claim should be struck out.

 

7. Conclusion

7.1. The Defendant complied with:

• The 5-minute consideration period,
  The 15-minute grace period,

7.2. The signage is poorly positioned and non-compliant, making enforcement unreasonable.

7.3 The Defendant respectfully requests the Court to dismiss the claim in full.

7.4 I also ask the Court to order the reimbursement of the set-aside fee of £273.74 as well as all the Defendant's Court attendance and other costs from the Claimant on the indemnity basis. The claim was not allocated to track, so costs are not dependent upon 'unreasonable conduct' and thus there must be costs in the case for the winning party, as also was the case in VCS v Carr.

 

APPENDICES

Church Park Park Rules

Sign from the parking space

Statement of Truth

I  believe that the facts stated in this car park rules and site picture are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed ________________

Date __________________

 

Coupon-mad

"I believe that the facts stated in this car park rules and site picture are true"

Pardon?

Use the Template Defence instead.

Gr1pr

As above, start again,  use a template defence from here

Which parking company claimant. ?  Which lawyers. ?  ( if any. )

elm64

Sorry, I’m having trouble finding the template. Is it the one in dropbox.com/scl/fi/i1u2vudfmb4xgyksxf6fd/Aug2023WS.rtf?rlkey=bfedahtd4lw4pqth2cncrrpli&dl=0 ?

elm64

The claimant is Civil Enforcement Limited, No lawyers contacted yet. Received claim form from Civil National Business Centre. I did appeal with parking company and POPLA, both were rejected.

Gr1pr

So its a direct claim by Civil Enforcement against you 

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 27/11/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 30/12/25.  There is nothing wrong with being early but it might pay you to look at the defence template as suggested by @Coupon-mad.

Coupon-mad

Which is easily found. See my signature!

elm64

Yes, I believe I have found it. Thank you for the guidance. I plan to insert the wording below into the template, replacing point 3, resulting in a total of 11 points. Is this any better? any suggestions

3. The Claimant has produced no evidence that any consideration or grace period was applied. No contract can be formed without allowing time to read and accept the terms. The vehicle was stopped for a short time, consistent with a lawful consideration period and grace period. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice requires a minimum 5-minute consideration period (APPENDIX B - Table B.1 Controlled land) , separate from any grace period. When combined with the 15-minute grace period allowed by the church car park rules (link), the alleged 17-minute stay does not constitute a breach.

4. Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice s3 states Signs and surface markings Signs and surface markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers. The signage at the site is poorly positioned and the site is inadequately maintained, making the signs difficult to see or read from the parking bays. A single entrance sign is insufficient; contractual terms must be clearly visible and legible from parking areas to form a valid contract. Consequently, the Defendant could not reasonably have been aware of the terms, rendering the purported Particulars of Claim invalid.

Gr1pr

The joint Code of Practice didn't exist in July 2024, see the previous CoP

elm64

Here is the Poc, Added £35 for court fee and legal rep costs £50, in total £273.74