CEL court date

Ggowda

Hi All,

I would be grateful if you could scrutinise my witness statement.

Bit of background, I entered the my wrong car reg when I paid for the parking ticket online.

Unfortunately, I forgot to update my DVLA address of my current car and they sent the penalty notice to my old address. I only received the Letter Before Action when I moved house and set up the royal mail redirection service.

I've tried to contact CEL but it was past the appeals and I tried to email them but not much help.

I have their witness statement.

Please see mine and see what you think of it and also whether if I win/they drop the case I can claim for my time involved in this process?

Introduction

1. I am XXX of XXXX, the Defendant. I make this witness statement from matters within my own knowledge except where otherwise stated. It supports my Defence and responds to the Claimant's witness statement.

2. The central issue is straightforward. I paid £4.50 for two hours' parking at Leen Gate Car Park on 6 November 2025. The paid session began at 13:10 and expired at 15:10. The Claimant's own case records vehicle XXX as being on site only from approximately 13:06 to 14:07.

3. The payment was inadvertently associated in the RingGo application with registration YYY, a vehicle I had previously owned, rather than XXXX. I rely on documentary evidence of the parking session, the corresponding bank transaction, and my historic connection with YYY.

4. I respectfully ask the Court to dismiss the claim. In the alternative, if the Court concludes that the incorrect registration constituted a contractual breach, I ask the Court to take account of the fact that the tariff was fully paid, the Claimant's trade association expressly recognises this precise 'previous car' situation as a major keying error, and the Claimant was told about the payment before proceedings were issued.

The parking event and payment

5. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim identify the alleged event as 6 November 2025 at Leen Gate Convenience / Leen Gate Car Park, involving vehicle XXX, with a time in of 13:06 and time out of 14:07. The Claimant's Notice to Keeper gives the more precise ANPR times of 13:06:05 and 14:07:29.

6. At 13:10 on 6 November 2025, approximately four minutes after the recorded entry, I purchased a two-hour parking session using RingGo for Leen Gate Car Park, XXXXX. The session ran until 15:10 and cost £4.50. The RingGo receipt is Exhibit A.

7. My banking record independently records a completed £4.50 RingGo card transaction at 13:10 on 6 November 2025, using the same card ending XXX shown on the RingGo receipt. This is Exhibit B.

8. The paid session therefore covered the whole period relied upon by the Claimant. The vehicle left at approximately 14:07, more than one hour before the paid session expired at 15:10.

9. The RingGo receipt shows that the session was associated with YYY. That was not a random or invented registration. YYYY was a vehicle I had previously owned. A DVLA document addressed to me and identifying YYY is Exhibit C.

10. My evidence is therefore that I intended to pay, did pay the correct tariff for this car park at the relevant time, and obtained more parking time than was used. The mistake was the vehicle registration selected within the payment application.

Chronology

Time	Event
13:06:05	XXX enters according to Claimant's ANPR/PCN
13:10	£4.50 RingGo session purchased for Leen Gate Car Park
14:07:29	XXX leaves according to Claimant's ANPR/PCN
15:10	Paid RingGo session expires

Keying error and the applicable industry Code

11. At paragraph 3 of its witness statement, the Claimant says that it is a member of the British Parking Association ('BPA') and abides by the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

12. Section 6.3 of the Single Code concerns keying errors. It requires an operator, where a driver supplies a vehicle registration mark when paying, to have and follow a documented policy and procedure to avoid issuing or enforcing a parking charge in respect of accidental keying errors, including technologies that reduce keying errors.

13. Annex F.3(a) is particularly relevant. It identifies as a mitigating circumstance a case where the driver has paid the tariff but made a major keying error, including where the motorist entered the registration of 'their previous car or another vehicle from their household'. Relevant extracts are Exhibit G.

14. That example closely matches what happened here: the tariff was paid, but the RingGo session was associated with my previous vehicle.

15. I recognise that Annex F.3 concerns the appeals process and does not by itself determine the Court's decision on contractual liability. I rely on it because it demonstrates that the Claimant's own trade association expressly recognises this type of mistake and requires operators to have procedures for it.

16. The Claimant's witness statement does not, so far as I can see, explain what keying-error procedure was applied to my payment, what search was undertaken for a matching payment at the same car park and time, or why the contemporaneous £4.50 payment should be disregarded.

Attempts to resolve the matter before proceedings

17. I did not receive the original Parking Charge Notice at my current address. The Claimant says it was issued on 11 November 2025 to XXX an address it says had been supplied by DVLA. I first became aware of the matter after receiving the Letter Before Action dated 26 February 2026.

18. Once I became aware of the matter, I attempted to resolve it directly. On 9 March 2026 I submitted an online complaint to the Claimant, reference CELC_2XX. I expressly stated that I had evidence that I had paid for two hours' parking and that the stay was only approximately one hour. The correspondence is Exhibit D.

19. The Claimant was therefore expressly informed before proceedings were issued that I disputed the charge because parking had been paid for and that evidence existed.

20. The response I received dealt principally with the address to which the original PCN had been sent. It did not address the substantive payment evidence I had raised. I replied again and reiterated that I had proof of payment.

21. By that stage the ordinary online appeal period had expired. The Claimant's Contact Us webpage stated that appeals had to be submitted online within 28 days of the PCN issue date. My screenshot of that page is Exhibit E.

22. I rely on this correspondence not as a separate cause of action, but because it shows that I did not ignore the matter once I became aware of it and that the Claimant had an opportunity before issuing proceedings to investigate my assertion that the tariff had been paid.

Response to the Claimant's witness statement

23. Much of the Claimant's witness statement consists of general material about private parking, ANPR, keeper liability and signage. The specific facts of this case are addressed principally at paragraphs 27 to 35.

24. At paragraph 29 the Claimant relies on ANPR to show the vehicle's presence. I do not dispute the recorded period of approximately one hour. That period is consistent with my evidence because I purchased two hours of parking four minutes after entry.

25. At paragraphs 31 and 32 the Claimant describes the matter as non-payment of the parking charge/debt. That does not address the important distinction between non-payment of the parking tariff and an accidental registration mismatch. The tariff itself was paid.

26. At paragraph 33 the Claimant claims £100 for the parking charge, £70 debt recovery costs and £5.48 interest, before the fixed court costs that take the total demand higher. The Claimant should be required to establish the contractual and legal basis for each additional sum.

27. At paragraph 34 the Claimant says a motorist freely enters an agreement to comply with the displayed conditions. I respectfully submit that the Court should consider the actual circumstances: payment was made at the correct location, minutes after entry, for a period exceeding the stay, and the only mismatch was the previous vehicle registration retained/selected in the payment application.

28. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim and the relevant extracts from its witness evidence are reproduced at Exhibit F for ease of reference.

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis and proportionality

29. I understand the Claimant relies on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. I do not suggest that every private parking charge is automatically an unenforceable penalty. Beavis establishes that a parking charge can be enforceable where the operator has a legitimate interest and the charge is not out of all proportion to that interest.

30. I respectfully submit, however, that the facts here are materially different from a motorist simply overstaying without payment. I paid the advertised parking tariff for more time than I used. The dispute arose solely because the payment was associated with my previous vehicle registration.

31. The existence of the BPA keying-error provisions is relevant context when assessing the Claimant's decision to pursue the full charge despite a fully paid session and a documented explanation matching the Code's own example.

Additional £70 and costs

32. I dispute the additional £70 described as 'debt recovery costs'. The Claimant should prove that this sum was actually incurred, was incorporated into any contract relied upon, and is recoverable in addition to the parking charge rather than representing duplicated recovery activity.

33. I also note that this claim is allocated to the small claims track, where recoverable costs are generally limited by CPR 27.14. I understand that the Court retains discretion in the circumstances specified by that rule.

34. I do not ask the Court to treat the BPA Code as legislation. I rely upon it as the standard which the Claimant itself says it follows and as persuasive evidence of the industry's treatment of accidental registration errors.

Conclusion

35. The contemporaneous documents show a payment of £4.50 at Leen Gate Car Park at 13:10 on 6 November 2025. The Claimant's own evidence places XXX at that car park from 13:06:05 until 14:07:29. The paid session lasted until 15:10.

36. The registration shown on the paid session, YYY, was my previous vehicle, as corroborated by the DVLA document. The precise situation is expressly identified in the BPA Single Code as a major keying error involving a previous car.

37. Before proceedings were issued, I informed the Claimant in writing that I had paid for two hours and had evidence of payment. The substantive payment issue was not resolved.

38. In those circumstances, I respectfully ask the Court to dismiss the claim. If the Court nevertheless finds a technical breach, I ask it to consider the paid tariff, the keying-error evidence and the Code when deciding what, if anything, is recoverable, and to reject any additional sums that the Claimant has not proved are contractually and legally recoverable.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth..

Gr1pr

Small point, the exhibits numbers should be your initials and a number, such as TKM01, TKM02 etc

You should be including the exhibits as seen in the court stage in post 2 of the newbies sticky thread in announcements, plus mention the recent CMA open letter etc

I suspect that CEL will discontinue, so when is the WS deadline ? And have CEL paid the hearing fee. ?

Ggowda

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82101151#Comment_82101151

Thanks for the advice. Deadline is 26th August. Not sure, what's the best way to find out?

Gr1pr

When is the hearing fee deadline date from the court order. ?

Ggowda

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82101166#Comment_82101166

September 9th

Gr1pr

Then you will have to submit your WS near your deadline, then phone the court after 9th September, to see if they paid or not

Coupon-mad

You need to add the transcript of HHJ Moloney's first judgment in Parkingeye v Beavis. And the wording about that.

As seen in recent WS such as by @JackR1

And some wording about the CMA's Open Letter where it talks about unfair appeals policies and rejections of valid disputes which are not in good faith, etc. and attach that as an exhibit too.

I assume the WS was just the template prolix one sent very early, with the N180? That's what CEL usually do!

They'll discontinue.

🙂

Ggowda

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82101223#Comment_82101223

Thank. Yes they sent it very early and it seems generic and didn't even take into account that I tried to contact them and that I had paid but wrong reg entered.

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82103428#Comment_82103428

Its just a generic one they send to everyone.

They will not pay the hearing fee