received court papers from CEl

Abzg2k19

As the title says we have once again received court papers from CCNBC after cel made a claim.

We have dealt with them before for the same reason and as it was covid they discontinued thanks to the wounderful people on here.

So my father who was the driver at the time and mother who is the registered keeper went to a GP appointment and they have recently changed from free parking to enter registration to park free in August 2025 we think it was.

My father took my Learning difficulties sister to her appointment and in a hurry forgot to press enter so here we are now with a court claim.

We did appeal but they rejected it and still wanted £20 even though he was there for 20 mins and we showed them the letter we got from the GP with the appeal but they do not care.

We also complained to the GP when we got the LBC with the yarm medical template i found on here but they just kept on repeating the same thing about popla and we cannot cancel, then just yesterday i was accused of threatening behaviour and i am on my last warning and any further behaviour i will be removed from the practice they said as i made the complaint on my name.

We have just filled the AOS today and we have found the draft template on MSE newbies forum and have added some bits but as that claim was from nearly 5-6 years ago it might be out of date so was woundering if anyone can please advise if it is okay to send.

Thanks

Abzg2k19

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN) for the lawful conduct described.

2. The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle was not authorised to use the car park based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of 'No Authorisation' or not being a patron of the facility.

3.The signage at the enterance of the car park is of a forbidding nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

4. The driver has already proved that patronage, and it is the Claimant's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms and iPad that catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a PCN that was not properly issued from the outset.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 remainsunaffected 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.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

11. 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

You've ruined the template para 1. Put it back!

😀

Otherwise same advice as here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6591882/cel-pcn-greenwich-high-rd-response-to-representation

Show us the POC & the date claim was issued.

Abzg2k19

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pu3prqd6rgjpjoy70li6a/20260728_000227.jpg?rlkey=4enh1woesig9m5ch13jh5y2hx&st=4arj4i7q&dl=0

Abzg2k19

We filled out the AOS on 24th july 2024 so by my calculations i have till 21st August to file a defence, correct me if im wrong please as i do not want to leave it till the last minute

Abzg2k19

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 Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Defendant was the driver, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the identity of the driver, or alternatively of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to establish keeper liability.
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. 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.
9. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators. 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'.
10. It is worth the judge noting that In July 2026 the UK consumer protection law Regulator - the Competition and Markets Authority ('the CMA') - has weighed in. The CMA has just published open letters to the parking industry and government on what they believe are actions that potentially breach consumer law: Open letter to private parking operators (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a5784276d6d5c7e2845ca02/open_letter.pdf).
    10.1. Paragraph 28 requires Operators to ensure that all substantive correspondence sent to consumers directs them to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice ('the CoP') in order to allow consumers to make better informed decisions on whether to pay, ignore or dispute a PCN. 'Substantive correspondence' includes the Notice to Keeper ('NTK'), which in the extant case contains no proper reference or direction to the applicable CoP in force at the material time, nor any explanation to assist the consumer in understanding the Code or their rights under it. The CMA consider this type of deficiency to be a failure to provide material information, ref: section 227(2) of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.
    10.1.2. The same criticism - a failure to provide material information - can also be made of the NTK's failure to describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay the parking charges arose. This is equally true of the woeful POC which fails to particularise the alleged breach or the term and nor does it properly identify the private land location.
    10.2. With the CMA's Open Letter in mind the Defendant avers that there is a lack of good faith in this Claimant (led by a solicitor and legal team) continuing to churn out boilerplate POC followed (as ever) by a premature prolix Witness Statement which this Defendant will not be intimidated by. This is the same Claimant as in CEL v Chan and they appear to believe they are above the law and above HHJ Murch. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums and template statements of case which fail to comply with Part 16 are good reasons for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

Abzg2k19

Thanks for the reply Coupon-mad so just send this as our defence.

Coupon-mad

You should have adapted para 10 and made the same changes as seen in the thread I linked above by @Vestree

Or look at this new version below, as we have a few CEL claims and I have changed para 10 this weekend for these cases:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82082623#Comment_82082623

By the way this is an appalling state of affairs and I think in your case you should put a paragraph in about this instead of Chan & Akande which aren't relevant to your case:

"So my father who was the driver at the time and mother who is the registered keeper went to a GP appointment and they have recently changed from free parking to enter registration to park free in August 2025 we think it was.

My father took my Learning difficulties sister to her appointment and in a hurry forgot to press enter so here we are now with a court claim.

We did appeal but they rejected it and still wanted £20 even though he was there for 20 mins and we showed them the letter we got from the GP with the appeal but they do not care."

Also, once the defence is in, please remind me by replying on this thread and I will write a CMA complaint for the Defendant to email.

The CMA should be investigating CEL for their unfair hidden keypad/screen set ups at GP surgeries. Shocking.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 10/07/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 29/07/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 12/08/26

Abzg2k19

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82083250#Comment_82083250

Thanks we have now updated paragraph 10, if we do not hear anything we will be posting the defence on monday.

Just a quick update from the GP they have now chucked me out the practice after i have been there all my life and just because i replied back that i am not too bothered if they remove me from the patient list as i am thinking of leaving as they do not care about their patients and they have now used the excuse of catchment area or something, not happy at all and will be making a complaint to ombudsman but heard they normally side with businesses anyway.

Coupon-mad

"Just a quick update from the GP they have now chucked me out the practice after i have been there all my life and just because i replied back that i am not too bothered if they remove me from the patient list as i am thinking of leaving as they do not care about their patients and they have now used the excuse of catchment area or something, not happy at all and will be making a complaint to ombudsman but heard they normally side with businesses anyway."

That's really terrible.

Removed from your GP practice for complaining that they signed up with CEL, who are now suing their patients for not inputting a VRM on a hidden screen with no signs or red arrows pointing to it.

CEL do this all over the UK and it's totally unacceptable to cause this level of social cost and consumer harm.

And that's before you even consider the highly intrusive process of filming drivers in cars at GP surgeries then sending those photos to a third party registered keeper, such as an aggressive partner who may not know about the GP visit his wife made. It's against the norms of patient privacy and in some cases, a recipe for domestic violence.

It is utterly indefensible to surround GP Surgeries with a 'ring of steel' (ICO's phrase about disproportionate ANPR) such that every driver/vehicle is filmed without them knowing and then they find they should have input their VRM, which they would have done but simply don't know either, because the screen is not prominent and wouldn't be seen by all patients.

There aren't even signs inside the premises to fairly draw attention to these unremarkable screens. They look like tablets for the staff to use).

At Yarm Medical practice the same thing happened and that GP surgery initially went public, blaming their patients for getting angry (…who wouldn't)?

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/woman-slapped-disgraceful-60-parking-20938796?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/gp-surgery-hits-out-after-25481812

Not to condone that sort of verbal abuse but the MHCLG and CMA mustn't let the parking industry get away with the old chestnut "parking is an emotive subject" or to blame the public.

The APAs trot out that sentence about it being 'emotive' every time (including to the DLUHC Select Committee in Nov 2021 where they all pulled sad-face expressions) so I really hope never to see that phrase repeated by the Government or by the CMA ever again!

You should be safe from harassment and hidden unfair terms and obligations at your Doctor's surgery.

And as we all know, at Yarm, the doctors finally twigged that the aggressor was CEL, not their patients. And they realised that they could not get out of the contract…

Poor Dr Milburn had to go on FaceBook apologising and she was almost in tears as she explained that they'd realised they had got it wrong:

https://www.facebook.com/yarmmedicalpractice/videos/info-from-dr-milburn-regarding-the-car-park-situation/715044153403700/

"we asked the firm for a copy of their protocols for issuing fines and they didn't send them to us"

… {it's Civil Enforcement Ltd as seen on the blue & white sign but she wrongly calls them "the parking eye company". It wasn't ParkingEye it was CEL}…

"you put in your VRM and still got fined"

"WE put in your VRM for you and we know you STILL got fined"

"we have sought legal advice"

"we complained to the operator, twice"

"we can't terminate the contract for a year"

This is what GP surgeries get from CEL.

They should be ashamed, like Dr Milburn was at Yarm, in the end.

I am adamant that the CMA should be investigating CEL for their appeals handling at doctor's' surgeries and looking at the wider industry and issuing guidance about the obvious trap and unfairness of the lack of prominence of the VRM tablets used by the industry EVERYWHERE, which look like staff monitors on cluttered desks in corners of office areas:

UKPC's white one from this article (NO SIGNS to draw a patient's attention to it):

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/26294747.patient-hit-170-parking-fine-oxford-nhs-hospital/

Horizon's black one at Tesco (NO SIGNS to draw a patient's attention to it):

Here's a CEL one tucked next to a curtain and behind a large equipment cage at a blood test clinic:

Here's a CEL one tucked away out if sight on the gym staff desk:

I added the red arrow in that last pic!

These screens simply don't meet the CRA 2015 test of prominence or the DMCC Act 2024 requirements for transparency, 'good faith' and open dealing with consumers.

There isn't even a warning at these points of transaction inside, about risking a PCN (or how much) if you don't see the tablet, or if it doesn't work, which they often don't, as Dr Milburn says in the video AND as Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre staff told the disabled victim in the Oxford news article.

And so far the BPA and IPC have been "working with" the CMA and (as we saw from the CMA's sadly weak video which sounded very much like Will Hurley or Kelvin Reynolds dictated what it should say: a typical list of consumer obligations that the APAs always trot out) it really looks like this rogue industry trade bodies have pulled the wool over the CMA's eyes a bit…

The supposed CMA consumer guidelines/info video doesn't even mention that landowners should be able to cancel unfair PCNs (the APAs don't want the CMA to tell the public that material fact) and it even wrongly implies that consumers should 'go looking' for hidden signs terms and unremarkable VRM keypads (no, that's not the legal position with hidden terms) and even worse… the CMA didn't even (yet) question the fairness of the £20 rip-off!

They will when they see this FOI info from Elli Hodgson about keying errors and how Euro Car Parks are cashing in with their obnoxious 'it's our old Metric payment machine's fault but we're saying it's your fault, so hurry up, you've got a few days to cough up and pay us £20 to stop us suing you' scam:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/i-d-rather-go-to-prison-than-pay-140-euro-car-parks-fine-320781/

Nobody should be pursued in court for not knowing to input their VRM due to the failure of the parking operator to make it clear (and print receipts as proof of input).

No PCNs should be issued at all because these intrusive 'ANPR & tablet' systems are inappropriate for vulnerable patients and stressed families at the GP.

It's bad enough at shops, gyms, hotels, pubs and restaurants but all PCNs issued for not inputting VRMs at GP surgeries should be ordered refunded, IMHO.