CEL Claim - Phone and Pay App Failure / Hidden Button

boo_1982

Hi everyone,

I have received a Claim Form from Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) for an alleged parking event at Dinecroft back in July 2024.

I have read the Newbies thread and have already successfully submitted my Acknowledgement of Service (AOS) on MCOL on 23 May to extend my deadline.

The Situation:
I entered the car park and tried to pay using the required 'Phone and Pay' app. The app is terrible—it presented what looked like a final confirmation screen, but actually had a hidden final processing button further down the page (a very common complaint on Trustpilot). Thinking I had paid, I walked to my office desk (about 5 mins away). I checked my phone for an email receipt, realised there was no active session, and immediately called the app's main support helpline to try and pay. The customer service rep was unhelpful and refused to take my payment or fix the issue.

The Defence & Evidence:
Because this is an in-house CEL claim and the Particulars of Claim are entirely generic (they don't actually specify the breach), I am using Coupon-mad's latest template defence, incorporating the CEL v Chan addition for Paragraph 3.

I already have a Subject Access Request (SAR) in progress. crucially, I already have my itemised phone bill from my mobile provider, which clearly proves a 15-minute outbound call to the Phone and Pay app's main support line (01727 229225) within minutes of me parking.

Could someone please cast an eye over my custom paragraphs 2 and 3 before I submit this to MCOL? (I am using the standard template for paragraphs 1, and 4-10).

2. The allegation is vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant admits they were the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle. However, the Claimant has failed to specify any actual breach of contract in their Particulars of Claim.

3. The Particulars of Claim are entirely generic. The Defendant refers the court to the appeal cases of Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref: E00N016J) and CPMS v Akande (Ref: E34YJ849), where senior judges struck out identical, poorly pleaded parking claims for failing to state a complete cause of action. The Defendant avers that this claim should similarly be struck out under CPR 3.4.

3.1. Further, any alleged failure to pay the parking tariff was caused entirely by the Claimant's own defective and highly misleading payment system. Upon arriving at the site, the Defendant attempted to pay via the required 'Phone and Pay' app within the 10-minute grace period stipulated on the signage. The app is poorly designed and deceptive; it presented a screen that reasonably appeared to be a final payment confirmation, whilst obscuring the actual final processing button further down the page. The Defendant, relying on this misleading interface, reasonably believed the parking tariff had been successfully paid and proceeded to their place of work.

3.2. Upon arriving at their desk a few minutes later, the Defendant checked for a confirmation email. Realising no active session was recorded due to the app's covert failure, the Defendant immediately attempted to mitigate loss by calling the Phone and Pay app's main customer support helpline (01727 229225) to rectify the issue and offer payment. The customer service representative was obstructive, refused to resolve the technical issue caused by their app, and refused to accept the tariff. The Claimant cannot now claim a punitive £170 charge when their own deceptive technology and unhelpful staff prevented payment.

Any advice or tweaks would be hugely appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

As they haven't pleaded the breach, remove all responses filling in their omissions. That just helps them! So don't add stuff about 'any alleged failure to pay the parking tariff'.

Except for the phrase in the below suggestion re 'elaborate' you can instead add this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82015043#Comment_82015043

boo_1982

Thank you! I'll amend and submit.