Feedback on CEL Defence for paying for parking after 10 mins.

defender809

Hi there guys just looking for some feedback,

I'm just writing my defence to a recent CEL claim for paying for my parking after the 10 minute window. This was because the one pay machine they had would not take card (it was not working) and i had to get some change to feed the meter. So i did pay.

Please see the actual redacted Claim attached and my paragraphs 2 and 3 of my Defence which i'm unsure if I need to further adapt for this situation.

CEL Claim.jpeg

2. The allegation(s) andheads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or atall. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delayin bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrievingmaterial documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. TheDefendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conductand further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant and driver has littlerecollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that theywere the registered keeper.

3. With regards to the POC inquestion, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil EnforcementLimited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd vAkande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply withCivil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15thAugust 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars ofthe claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to thebreach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim forbreach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant truststhat the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant toCPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held thattypical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. Onthe 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claimhave to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove hisor her claim'

Many thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

Did you pay late but for the full time on site?

If so, I might be able to get the BPA to help cancel this claim. It sounds like a 5 minute rule case which was banned a year ago and breaches the unfair terms section of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Please tell us:

• the exact in/out times on the original PCN
• the exact time on the machine receipt?
• the issue date on that Claim
• 'Violation date' on the claim POC?

defender809

@Coupon-mad many thanks for getting back to me so fast.

As requested here is the info you aske for:

1. Fee paid for full time on site which was an hour but I was only there for 49 minutes
2. In/Out Times - 10:01 AM/10:50AM
3. Machine Receipt Time: 10:15AM
4. Issue Date Claim: 09/01/2026 - so Defence needs to be filed in a few days, completed AOS 5 days after Issue Date.
5. Violation Date: 02/11/2024

Kind regards,

Coupon-mad

OK so this is another '5 minute rule' case.

But you need to get your defence in.

I would change the first four paragraphs of the template defence - in your case - to this (sorry about the font changes, I blame the stupid new 'rich editor' thingy on here):

1. The Defendant admits that they were the registered keeper and driver but denies liability for any sum at all. The added £70 costs are double recovery and the claim exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Further, this claim includes pre-loaded interest. Whilst S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 grants courts a discretionary power to award simple interest, this Claimant presumes a right to 8% interest (calculated on the whole enhanced quantum) on the top line of the sum claimed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the courts to intervene, as are very poor particulars, as seen here. Save for the dates, these particulars match a persuasive appeal case that this Claimant lost in 2023.

2. The Claimants appear to have no respect for HHJ Murch who found against these particulars, in Civil Enforcement v Chan (E7GM9W44), saying: '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'. A second, similar appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (K0DP5J30) in 2024 saw HHJ Evans also dismiss a parking claim purely due to failure to comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, by not stating 'all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'.

3. Due to the sparse particulars which lack the required specificity, the Defendant is forced to guess from the PC issued a year ago that this looks like a (sector banned, due to unfair terms) '5 minute rule' case. The fee was paid for the full time on site but the only pay machine would not take card (it was not working) and the Defendant took a few minutes to get coins instead. An hour was paid for but the Defendant was only there 49 minutes, so the Claimant suffered no loss and the unspecified breach or 'violation' is denied. ParkingEye v Beavis is fully distinguished.

4. Car park terms that allow only a few minutes to pay were identified in a well-publicised 2025 case (Excel v Hannah Robinson) atMiddlesbrough County Courtas unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. District Judge Janine Richards found that Excel's conduct was 'unreasonable and out of the norm', and she ordered the firm to pay Ms Robinson's legal costs of £10,240. The judgment made the national papers and the outcry forced a U-turn and sector-wide ban on pursuing such cases. However, this Claimant has continued to process the Defendant's data for over a year, sending debt demands without justification and has carried on regardless of the industry ban on the 5 minute rule, which surely reaches the Dammerman v Lanyon Bowdler bar for vexatious conduct which permits of no reasonable explanation.The Defendant invites the court to strike this claim out or in the alternative, invites the Claimant to discontinue now. If forced to endure the stress of this litigation beyond February 2026, the Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of wholly unreasonable conduct opening up the possibility of further costs on the indemnity basis (CPR 46.5).

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of 'reasonable cause' (absent here) and the rules require prior written landowner authority. 
(Then continue with the Template…)

Castle

OP

Who signed the claim form?

(Defence filing deadline is by 4.00pm on Wednesday 11th February).

defender809

@Coupon-mad many thanks for your help in this matter and for sending a response in the early hours of the morning. I really appreciate your help, thank you again and wilk get this into my Defence.

defender809

@Castle The Claim form came from HMCTS themselves so I did not see any signed name.

Le_Kirk

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81875436#Comment_81875436

Might it be on the reverse or a subsequent page?

defender809

@Le_Kirk i did check all the other pages and could not find any signature.

Coupon-mad

Not a signature. A name on the back of the claim form. It IS there.

defender809

Sorry guys, yes it is…it blended into the back of the document with the notes so I did not notice. The name is (Removed by Forum Team) (Head of Legal).