Defence against PCN Civil Enforcement: numberplate keying error or not input

Rickyroughneck

Hello all, I have found defences where a numberplate was inputted incorrectly but none where it was omitted altogether. I am unsure if forgetting to input a reg constitutes a major keying error? My other question

Thank you very much for any help in defeating these parasites.

Summary of events:

Incident: customer of leisure centre but forgot to input reg/ inputted wrongly (forgot which)

Appeal with evidence of custom rejected.

Missed deadline for POPLA appeal.

Responded to LBC by email to the Civil Enforcement email addresses I could find: no reply.office@ce-service.co.uk, Legal3@ce…, dataprotectionofficer:ce…

County Court Claim - Acknowledgement of Service done.

Particulars of Claim:

I have written a draft defence. It starts with two paragraphs outlinling the specific case details as I read in another thread that the judge asked for the non-template material, so putting it first at least means that the specifics can be digested quickly.

Defence questions:

-Do I mention too many details that could allow Civil Enforcement to see my cards?

-I would quite like to point out that the methods of these cowboys are designed to intimidate, and set you up to fail with timings etc. Not sure how or whether this would be good to mention though?

County Court Claim Defence:

The terms and conditions stated in signage for parking at xxx Leisure Centre clearly state that parking is free for customers. As a customer of xxx Leisure Centre on the day of the Parking Charge (PC), the Defendant is therefore not liable for the sum claimed. This functionality was backed up by

Customers of xxx Leisure Centre normally input their numberplate into a terminal within the leisure centre. The sole basis of this claim is a keying error, whereby the Defendant’s car numberplate was not correctly inputted. The Claimant, Civil Enforcement, is a member of the British Parking Authority (BPA). BPA guidelines (latest version 1.1) state that minor keying errors (such as a single-digit misspelling) are exempted from a fine [section F.1h] and major keying errors are limited to a reduced admin “fee” of £20 [section F.3a]. The Claimant did not, however, remove or reduce the charge to £20 after an appeal with proof of custom from the Defendant. The Claimant instead demanded the full charge, which was then promptly hiked to £170. Since the Claimant did not follow their own rules, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

[Defence template]

Coupon-mad

I guess that's your para 3, so I would just add near the start if that, a denial of the two mixed allegations in that POC. Neither of them are true, so deny them both.

You could also change para 10 of the Template Defence to instead use the punchy stuff written in the CEL thread about Leagrave.

Le_Kirk

If you show us the date of issue of the N1SDT claim form, we can advise you of your deadlines for AS and defence.

Rickyroughneck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82106063#Comment_82106063

Thank you for the info! Defence is almost finished, is now the correct time to ask for witness statements or should I wait to see if it actually goes to court?

Confused about which PoS allegations to deny as the PoS seems very thin. Do you mean to deny entering into a contract with them or that the contract was breached? From my perspective, if I would deny the breach (I.e. being there) then wouldn't that undermine my case as a valid customer?

I have just read most of the lengthy thread: "2x CCJ's - Civil Enforcement Limited - Private Parking Violation", was that the correct one? It was a nail-biting read but it seemed very different to this case which was beyond my capabilities to adapt to paragraph 10 of the template, which seems to pertain to recouping costs? I did however split template paragraph 1 into two parts, while souping up the first part emphasising the lack of specificity in the PoC, including material from the thread "Bulk litigators…".

Defence paragraph 1. The Claimant’s conduct is unethical. Bulk litigators like the notorious Civil Enforcement Limited should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with their own Practice Direction. Their 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'. Their modus operandi is to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, regardless of the evidence. The economy of scale works in their favour though, as while they utilise automated systems for detection, letters and a copy-paste claim, defendants and courts must devote many hours acquainting themselves with case details and laws. Their business model relies on ignorance, fear and tedium on the part of defendants, who in response to numerous threats, bribes and forced dialogue, sadly often deem it necessary, safer or easier to simply pay the charge, even when the case holds no water. This shifts the burden of proof further towards the Claimant, who should not be surprised when courts strike out these claims based upon the following authority:

2. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in …. CEL v Chan, VPS v Akande

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82106638#Comment_82106638

The form is dated 11 AUG, but I completed the AoS on the 14th (I think).

Coupon-mad

I mean deny the two allegations.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 11/08/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 14/09/26

Rickyroughneck

Thank you for your replies.

After reading threads where judges appeared to dislike lengthy template defences, I was worried about !!!!!! off the judge so shortened the defence. I deleted template paragraphs 5-9, moving 7b to 4b; paragraph 10 is now paragraph 5. This defence keeps the most relevant parts of the template, to which I added a few case specifics.

Is this an okay approach, and is the defence too long or short for the average judge attention span?

One of the template paragraphs calls upon "Chan", mentioning a transcript below: «…in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below)». Do I need to find the transcript and include it too?

When should I gather witness statements and evidence?

Defence v2

Facts known to the defendant

1. The terms and conditions stated in signage for parking at X Leisure Centre state that parking is free for customers. As a customer of X Leisure Centre on the day of the Parking Charge (PC), the Defendant should therefore not be liable for the sum claimed. The allegation particulars 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 here and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

2. Customers of X Leisure Centre normally input their numberplate into a terminal within the leisure centre. The sole basis of this claim is a keying error, whereby the Defendant’s car numberplate was not correctly inputted. The Claimant, Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL), is a member of the British Parking Authority (BPA) trade body. BPA guidelines (latest version 1.1) state that minor keying errors (such as a single-digit misspelling) are exempted from a fine [section F.1h] and major keying errors are limited to a reduced admin “fee” of £20 [section F.3a]. The Claimant did not, however, remove or reduce the charge to £20 after an appeal with proof of custom from the Defendant. The Claimant instead demanded the full charge, which then escalated to £170. Since the Claimant did not follow their own rules, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

Conduct of the claimant

3a. The Claimant’s conduct is improper. CEL is notorious for making little or no attempt to comply with their own practice direction. Their sparse case 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'. Their modus operandi is typical of bulk litigation: pleading cases with generic wording, regardless of the evidence. The economy of scale works in their favour though, as while they utilise automated systems for detection, letters and a copy-paste claim, defendants and courts must devote many hours acquainting themselves with case details and laws. Their business model of relies on ignorance, fear and tedium on the part of defendants, who in response to numerous threats, bribes and forced dialogue, sadly often deem it necessary, safer or easier to simply pay the charge, even when it was unjustly applied. This shifts the burden of proof further towards the Claimant, and the court is invited to strike out these claims based upon the following authority:

3b. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande 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 cited case, HHJ Murch held that '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 in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

4a. The Claimant has improperly escalated the original PC from £75 (26th Feb) to £100 (26th April), £140 (24th May) and £170 (2nd July). The additional 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 the interest of £6.30 should also be disallowed. This exaggerated claim for impermissible sums is a good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

4b. 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.

5. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and invites the court under CPR 27.14(2)(dg) to order further costs based on the unreasonable conduct of the Claimant in both the pre- and post-action phases. The Claimant was provided with evidence that the Defendant was a legitimate user of the car park yet failed to cancel the charge, they did not lower the charge to £20 in accordance with BPA rules on keying errors, added illegitimate claims for damages and improperly threatened the Defendant with a damaged credit rating. The Defendant proposes that all together, this conduct meets the bar set in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 for the award of further costs under CPR 46.5.

Coupon-mad

"When should I gather witness statements and evidence?"

At WS stage before the hearing. Nothing is attached as evidence at defence stage.

Read the red capitals sub-heading 'IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' in post 2 of the NEWBIES thread.