CEL Private Parking CCJ Claim — Poor Signage Defence — Help Needed

21ko_19

Hi All, concerned newbie here desperately looking for advice on how to move forwards with County Court Claim from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Incident occurred last year on January 30th at the Bellevue car park (237-259 Greenwich High rd, SE10 8NB) in front of ALDI and many other small shops.

CEL refused my challenge on grounds it was after 28 day period but only received letter 4 days before cutoff date. Several email exchanges with ALDI senior advisor strongly requesting they intervene as I was shopping with them but was told they didn't have power to overturn a pcn and could only offer me store credit which I turned down.

Following forum advice I ignored all CEL letters. Have now received a Claim form letter which I've already acknowledged service and my defence deadline is 28th June. I originally citied poor signage throughout the car park as my defence.

I would really appreciate any and all counsel to draft a solid defence.

Many thanks

(Image removed by Forum Team)

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 26/05/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 29/06/26

Deadlines will ever be on a week-end or bank holiday

I originally citied cited poor signage throughout the car park as my defence.

I would really appreciate any and all counsel to draft a solid defence.

What do these two statements mean; you haven't submitted a defence yet have you? Just use the template defence especially written for CEL cases. It's in the template defence thead.

Gr1pr

The Claim reference is on show ( reported for deletion, due to forum data protection rules. )

CEL in-house Claim, no breach pleaded, use the Chan and Akande defence template

Coupon-mad

Yep read the Template Defence thread and within it use the special paragraph 3 linked twice, for CEL in-house claims. Please don't copy & paste it here thanks! We don't need to check it on thread after thread.

🙂

21ko_19

Hi all, thank you to those who pointed me to CEL in-house claim and Chan/Akande template.

I've now drafted my defence combining the Chan/Akande argument with a signage defence (supported by my own photos and google street view imagery). Before I file I'd really appreciate a final sanity check on the wording below:-

The Defendant was the driver of vehicle registration [REG] on 30 January 2025, and does not dispute being present at the car park on that date.

With regards to the Particulars of Claim 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 Particulars of Claim fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 15 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: while the Particulars of Claim state a date and time in/out, they fail to identify which specific term of the alleged contract was breached (e.g. failure to pay tariff, exceeding a free period, parking without a permit, or otherwise). 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 Particulars of Claim (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On 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."

Further and in the alternative, the Defendant submits that no contract was formed between the parties, as the terms and conditions relied upon by the Claimant were not adequately brought to the Defendant's attention prior to or at the point of entering the car park. The Defendant attended the car park on 30 January 2025 during the hours of darkness. Photographic evidence taken by the Defendant at a corresponding time of year and in similar low-light conditions demonstrates that the primary signage was significantly obscured from a driver's line of sight by mature trees positioned directly in the line of approach along Greenwich High Road. This is corroborated by Google Street View imagery (captured October 2024), which independently confirms the same obstruction from a driver's vantage point. As the signage was not reasonably legible or prominent at the point of entry, the Defendant could not have read or agreed to the terms allegedly breached, and no contract incorporating those terms was therefore validly formed.

The sum claimed (£272.77) exceeds the £170.00 parking charge stated in the Particulars of Claim. The additional £102.77 is not particularised, and the Defendant disputes that these costs are legitimately recoverable, particularly as the Claimant has brought this claim in-house and has not incurred external legal representation costs of the kind these charges purport to reflect.

For the reasons set out above, the Defendant denies liability in full and invites the Court to strike out and/or dismiss the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4, alternatively to dismiss the claim following consideration of the evidence at any hearing.

Questions

• Does the wording in point 2 (Chan/Akande) hold up given the POC does include date/time, just not the specific breach?
• Is point 4 (disputing the added £102.77) likely to help, or is it unnecessary padding?
• Any issues with how I've worded the signage argument in point 3?

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

I take it the above will be numbered as para 3 & 4 and then you'll re-number the rest of the template, so you don't lose any of it?

Remove all this and save it for WS stage:

"Photographic evidence taken by the Defendant at a corresponding time of year and in similar low-light conditions demonstrates that the primary signage was significantly obscured from a driver's line of sight by mature trees positioned directly in the line of approach along Greenwich High Road. This is corroborated by Google Street View imagery (captured October 2024), which independently confirms the same obstruction from a driver's vantage point. As the signage was not reasonably legible or prominent at the point of entry, the Defendant could not have read or agreed to the terms allegedly breached, and no contract incorporating those terms was therefore validly formed.

The sum claimed (£272.77) exceeds the £170.00 parking charge stated in the Particulars of Claim. The additional £102.77 is not particularised, and the Defendant disputes that these costs are legitimately recoverable, particularly as the Claimant has brought this claim in-house and has not incurred external legal representation costs of the kind these charges purport to reflect."

(You don't need that because the lower paras in the template defence already more than cover the fake added fee and you've argued it wrongly. It's the £170 figure that is objectionable, not the £102.77. The full template deals with that).

Answers to your questions

• Does the wording in point 2 (Chan/Akande) hold up given the POC does include date/time, just not the specific breach?

Obviously yes! These are all the same. Date & time isn't sufficient.

• Is point 4 (disputing the added £102.77) likely to help, or is it unnecessary padding?

As above, remove it as it's wrong.

• Any issues with how I've worded the signage argument in point 3?

Looks fine.

😃

21ko_19

Update on case. Seeking further advice from the community..

-I've received CEL's DQ & witness statement signed by Head of Legal & Compliance. They have threatened me with full escalation including recovery balance & legal fees if i don't pay.

Key points I've noted:

• The PCN confirms the breach reason as "Payment not made in accordance with notified terms" — this is a non-payment charge for a 20-minute stay
• Paragraph 28 asserts signage was "clear and visible" — I have visual evidence contradicting this
• They rely on Vine v Waltham Forest for the signage argument
• Their witness statement totals the claim at £187.77, yet the amount claimed in proceedings is £272.77 — an unexplained discrepancy of £85.00

They have ticked yes to paper determination without a hearing. I intend to tick No as I have photographic evidence I wish to present.

Questions:-

• How significant is the £85.00 discrepancy between their own stated total (£187.77) and the claim amount (£272.77)? Is this something the court would take seriously?
• I have drafted my own witness statement addressing the signage argument with photographic evidence and directly challenging the £85 discrepancy — is this the right approach?
• Any specific advice on responding to their reliance on Vine v Waltham Forest given my signage photos?
• Should I be looking to request CEL's evidence bundle/signage photographs from them before the hearing?

Thanks again — this forum has been invaluable throughout

Car1980

What exactly are they saying about Waltham Forest because it's about clamping, which is now illegal. I've never seen it cited in a PPC witness statement - probably because the victim won.

Car1980

See this case regarding a claim that doesn't add up: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82024878#Comment_82024878?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=horizon

Car1980

Should I be looking to request CEL's evidence bundle/signage photographs from them before the hearing?

No - you want them to omit them.

The onus is on them to make their claim. If they are making a claim based on contract law, but fail to submit the actual contract they are relying upon it should be fatal.

So they didn't put this in their witness statement? Have you got theirs early or something because you usually exchange them.

Or is it some sort of threat document, as that indicates imminent discontinuance.

What exactly have you received?

Gr1pr

CEL tended to issue an early WS after a defence has been submitted, under wongaman and now by Syed

Nothing to see here at this early stage, because it doesn't matter until its with a defendants local civil court, same as all the rest, study recent comments by regular members like coupon mad about this foolish early stage response, hoping to frighten the Litigant in Person ( defendant. )

I think its a quirk that CEL do, but nobody else, and its probably a standard template response, i doubt that they spent any time on it