CEL - Defence

Simba786

Hi,

I have been a close reader of this forum as of late and need some help from the experts.

I received a N1SDT without any prior warnings or fine letters from CEL, it was literally just this letter from the court which I found strange.

I filed my AOS and normally I would use the CEL defence template since CEL normally doesnt stipulate a reason in the POC but this time they have put a reason or what I deem to be a reason.

so in this case, am I correct that I should not use the usual Chan or Akande reason in point 3 of the template?

It says exceeding the noticed maximum free parking period of 2 hours whereas normally they wouldn’t provide a reason.

Gr1pr

Use the standard 10 paragraph defence template then

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82104876#Comment_82104876

With the changed para 10 seen in the CEL Leagrave thread. No link - search & find it!

Simba786

Ah the experts I was waiting for. thank you

So do we agree that POC does stipulate a reason then?

I think I’ve found the correct Leagrave part hopefully fits in MCOL but do I include that link to the open letter because they won’t be able to click it will they?

also I didn’t get any NTK just this letter so I don’t know whether to include the below.

MY point 3 will be about not receiving any NTK since I can’t use Chan and Akande?

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 - link”

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, fails to direct the consumer to the CoP. The CMA consider that this is 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.

Gr1pr

Not receiving paperwork is no defence, the parking company claimant obtained the RK details from the DVLA database at the time of the incident, then sent paperwork to that registered address ( so if the keeper had moved and failed to update the address promptly, that's the RK problem, not the parking companies problem. )

Your paragraph 2 may need an ending

Your paragraph 3 should refute the POC, not whinge about missing paperwork

Coupon-mad

I'd remove this from 10.1.2.

"particularise the alleged breach or the term, and nor does it "

1505grandad

"This is the same Claimant as in CEL v Chan, and they appear to believe they are above the law and above HHJ Murch"

Just checking - there is no reference to Chan case in the D so is the above in para 10.2 relevant?

Coupon-mad

That's a good spot, remove that.

Simba786

Thanks for the suggestion guys. Sorry for the late reply.

This is my defence right now but I am struggling with number 3.

I referred to the template and it says "if i didn't get any letters" that i should mention it.

So I am writing about that and that i cant recall driving. Is that enough for a dismissal of the fine?

if not what else can I write that works and is effective?

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 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.

3. As this incident was a more than a year ago I do not recall entering the car park. I also did not get any letters pertaining to this prior to this court letter.

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. 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 - link”

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, fails to direct the consumer to the CoP. The CMA consider that this is 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.

Gr1pr

A defence is written in the 3rd person

Paragraph 3 should refute the allegations in the POC on the lower left of the claim form

There was no fine, just an invoice from a private parking company

Simba786

Thanks

3. As the incident occurred more than a year ago, the Defendant does not recall entering the car park. The Defendant also did not receive any correspondence relating to the matter prior to receiving the court claim.