CEL In House, Claim Form Stage

stutaylor86

Hi, i have read the newbies thread, guide to MCOL and template defence including the specifics for a CEL in house claim where breach is not specified.

I’ve attached the Claim Form for reference and confirm AOS was completed this evening, 26/04/2026.

I have my draft defence ready to go, the suggested standard paragraphs including the relevant Chan & Azande para 3 per the above and I’ve chosen to omit para 10 to avoid any character limitation issues on submission.

The only question i have is regarding driver status; i was the driver and it was woeful signage, illegible at night with confusing and conflicting conditions that led to payment not being made.

Should i add at the end of para 2 that i was the driver and also amend the wording that states little knowledge of events etc?

IMG_3713.jpeg

Coupon-mad

Should i add at the end of para 2 that i was the driver

Yes.

…and also amend the wording that states little knowledge of events etc?

You can remove that sentence but as they haven't pleaded any breach/term, don't respond to allegations not made.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 21/04/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 26/04/26 and before or on 10/05/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 26/05/26

I am assuming it is 21 April as the date of issue is partially obscured.

Kinomanka

@Le_Kirk

Hello,

I'm in exactly the same position as @stutaylor86 - received a Claim Form from Civil Enforcement Ltd. with issue date of 21 April 2026. I completed the AoS yesterday (27 April 2026) and am now preparing my defence. Can I submit my defence on May 22nd or does it have to be on May 26th? Thank you for all your support!

Gr1pr

No problem with earlier, just dont miss the deadline

Le_Kirk

As @Gr1pr writes, you are OK to submit on any date before 26th as that is a deadline.

stutaylor86

Thanks for your help all, greatly appreciated.

One final question before I submit my defence; there is no mention of formatting in the newbies or template thread, does it not have to start with a heading of “defendant versus…etc” and end with a statement of being true to the best of my knowledge etc, literally just copy into MCOL from para 1?

Gr1pr

If using MCOL to submit your defence, you dont need the header or footer, just copy and paste your 10 or so paragraphs into the 122 lines on MCOL in the defence box, do not use the following 3 characters " < >

Save and submit

stutaylor86

This is my defence in full for completeness;

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 can only acknowledge that they were the registered keeper and 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'.

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.

Coupon-mad

Yep MCOL doesn't need the headers or statement of truth as that's implied within the system when you tick boxes & submit it.

stutaylor86

Just by way of update, DQ form received and submitted per newbies thread this evening (deadline 22nd June). Also appears the new CEL “Head of Legal and Compliance” Mr S-A-A is continuing the recent trend of premature, lengthy and erroneous witness statements, as i received on dated 29th May!