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.