County Court CEL inhouse

Shaf_1

Hi i am a nurse i have been given a county court claim for CEL inhouse for parking at a GP surgery working as a nurse, Please can anyone help?

Thanks

Gr1pr

Study the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum by coupon mad

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below

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

Shaf_1

court form

Jame4ters

How were you supposed to register your car? Was it via a list at the surgery? Have you spoken to the GP practice to get it cancelled?

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 16/02/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 21/02/26 and before or on 07/03/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 23/03/26

With an issue date of 18/02/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 23/02/26 and before or on 09/03/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 23/03/26

The claim form is a bit blurred and I have assumed the date is 16/02/26, however deadline is the same!

Coupon-mad

Just use the special Chan & Akande linked para 3 within the Template Defence, so you don't need to draft anything.

Shaf_1

Thanks you very much for all the support;

I am drafting my response and will post it shortly

thanks

Shaf_1

Hi please see my response that i will be uploading for MCOL: thanks:

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'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the driver.

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'."

I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) in relation to my vehicle at Healds Road Surgery on 08/08/2025.

On this date, I was scheduled to work at the surgery from 09:00 to 17:00. I arrived on site at 09:00 and correctly registered my vehicle using the surgery’s computer logging system, as required. I temporarily left the premises at approximately 12:00 and returned at 13:44, before completing my shift and leaving at 17:02.

At no point was I made aware that I needed to re-register my vehicle upon returning to the site. I reasonably believed that my initial registration at 09:00 covered the entirety of my working day.

I have since received a PCN, which I promptly appealed via your online system. This appeal was rejected despite the following supporting facts:

Confirmation of my scheduled shift at the surgery for the stated hours.

Confirmation from the surgery management that I was authorised to have my vehicle on site during this time.

Evidence that the vehicle registration system has been experiencing ongoing technical issues, including failures to correctly log vehicles and difficulties cancelling PCNs for legitimate staff and visitors.

Furthermore, the surgery manager has directly contacted your company to confirm that this charge has been issued in error and should be cancelled.

I made multiple attempts to contact CEL to resolve this matter but received no response, leaving me unable to address the issue directly.

Given that:

I was authorised to park on site for the full duration of my shift,

I complied with the registration system in good faith,

The system itself has documented technical faults,

And the landowner (the surgery) has explicitly supported cancellation,

I request that this PCN be cancelled immediately.

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 Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(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 references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control '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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes 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))'.

16. In the event the claim progresses, then as an unrepresented litigant in person, I reserve the right to alter, vary and add to this defence or reply to any further particulars of claim/documents the Claimant may provide.I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

Signed

Gr1pr

Definitely not a Penalty, stick to the facts

Paragraph 3 is far too long, should be concise

Defences are written in the 3rd person, no I etc

You are not appealing, you are defending

The numbering is incorrect

Scrap the story, because the alleged breach isnt pleaded, so no stories, just Chan & Akande

Shaf_1

Thank you will start to amend now.

Shaf_1

The driver wishes to formally appeal the claim issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) in relation to a vehicle at Healds Road Surgery on 08/08/2025.

On this date, the driver was scheduled to work at the surgery from 09:00 to 17:00. Arriving at 09:00 and in accordance correctly registered the vehicle using the surgery’s computer logging system. The driver temporarily left the premises at approximately 12:00 and returned at 13:44, before completing the shift and departing at 17:02.

At no point was the driver made aware, either through signage or instruction, that the vehicle was required to be re-registered upon returning to the site. The driver reasonably believed that the initial registration at 09:00 covered the entirety of the working day.

The driver submitted an appeal via your online system, which was rejected despite the following:

Confirmation from surgery management that the driver was authorised to have the vehicle on site for the full duration of the shift

Evidence that the vehicle registration system has ongoing technical issues, including failures to correctly log vehicles and difficulties cancelling PCNs issued in error

Direct communication from the surgery manager to CEL confirming that this charge has been issued incorrectly and should be cancelled

In addition, the driver made multiple attempts to contact CEL to resolve this matter but received no response, preventing any meaningful opportunity to address the issue.

It is evident that this claim has been issued in error and must be cancelled.