Civil Enforcement Limited (Marshall's Yard)

fridge_raider21

Hi All,

Any help with this would be much appreciated, thanks in advance.

Civil Enforcement LTD have started a MCOL against me. This is for parking at Marshall's Yard in Gainsborough. I suspect this is linked to a previous case that I had help with on here, despite the date being different (genuinely don't think anyone visited on the date listed). On the previous case, I submitted my defence via email, received acknowledgment, and never heard anything further about the proceedings. This was in 2023. Previous link is :

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6461046/help-with-defence-civil-enforcement-ltd

This time, the claim states "drivers may only park pursuant to TCs of use displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/parking. ANPR cameras or manual patrols monitor vehicles entering/exiting the CP and TC breaches. Charges of £170 claimed. Violation date: 02/10/2024.

Time in: 12:40 Time out: 15:46.

PCN: Ref2673041176"

I have checked the PCN number on the Civil Enforcement website and it does show the same date and times. I have no further information/photos etc. They are claiming £192.24 debt and interest, plus £35 court fee, £50 legal costs, total £277.24.

The issue date is 26 May 2026. I have completed AOS on MCOL today (09/06/26).

Firstly, do we submit defences on MCOL now? This was not the case but seems to be the advice from the sticky, but seems like people have had technical issues with character/line limits?

Secondly, the first draft of my defence is below, can anyone advise if this is correct/sufficient?

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 a 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 registered keeper.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant would not have been the driver at the time of the incident, as his work diary demonstrates that he was working on the date in question. The Defendant’s wife would have been the driver but, due to the length of time that has passed since the incident, neither the Defendant nor his wife can recollect any further details about the incident.

 

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))'.

Coupon-mad

do we submit defences on MCOL now?

Yes.

The Template defence fits on MCOL but you are supposed to be using the bespoke para 3 for CEL in-house claims that's linked no less than twice in the Template Defence thread .. to stop people overlooking it..!

Please continue on your original thread.

One case one thread please!

fridge_raider21

Yes, I did see the CEL paragraph linked, but didnt know if it applied in this case as CEL have explained the violation - the wording of that section appeared to me to refer to a situation where they had provided no details.

I also didnt continue on the old thread because I wasn't, and still aren't, sure if it is actually the same case or not. If that's preferred though, ill repost on that one.

Coupon-mad

The date of 'violation' and date of PCN should tell you if it's the same one. If it is, we need the context of your longer thread.

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

fridge_raider21

Yes, it isn't the same one. I logged onto CEL website and checked. I will submit the defence today with the paragraph change recommended above. Thanks.