What evidence for POFA Compliance

MrJenkinsEsq

Do you know what the wording on the sign was? Was there anything that made incorrect VRM input a term that could lead to a PCN?

babelfish42

The Claimant is not represented by a firm - the Claimant declares an in-house 'Head of Legal' and the named person (if they are the same) is a recently registered Solicitor working in a company 'Not regulated by an approved regulator for legal services.' - SRA Notice

James_Poisson

So is it CP Plus why are you being so reticent when you have left your VRN details on the POC?

Umkomaas

I suspect it’s Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Car1980

Yes, looks like an internal Civil Enforcement claim that is very likely to be discontinued.

Go through the motions with the template defence and let us see your bespoke paragraph 3 for checking.

Coupon-mad

Is the site location in your case only shown as 'Market Street Lane'?!

I suggest you search the forum for Leagrave and read the CEL defences on the resulting threads. Copy from those.

babelfish42

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82118472#Comment_82118472

Thank you for all your responses….

Here is my full defence (redacted) but, as indicated above paragraph 3 is a crux or my argument and I would greatly appreciate advisory comments on it:

3. Defence

Preliminary
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXX. The vehicle was, on the   date in question, driven by XXXXXXXXXXXXX, the Defendant's husband, who was the driver throughout   and who makes this Defence on the Defendant's behalf with her authority. The Claimant was informed of   the driver's identity, and given the driver's email address   (xxxxxxxxx@gmail.com), at the time this matter was first raised with the   Claimant. Liability is denied, whether as pleaded or at all, for the reasons below.

The Particulars of Claim are defective and should be struck out

2. The Particulars of Claim are embarrassing and disclose no reasonable grounds for   bringing the claim. They state only that the charge was for "Payment not made in   accordance with notified terms". They do not specify the conduct said to constitute   the breach of contract relied upon, contrary to CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16,   paragraph 7.5, which requires that where a claim is based upon an agreement by   conduct the particulars must specify the conduct relied upon and state by whom, when   and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.

3. This precise defect, in a claim brought by this same Claimant on materially identical   boilerplate wording, was considered on appeal in **Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan**   (County Court at Luton, Ref. E7GM9W44, 15 August 2023). His Honour Judge Murch held   that the particulars of 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", and struck the claim out. The same failure is present   here: the Particulars assert that a contract arose and was breached, but nowhere   specify *what* the driver is said to have done that constituted the breach — whether   an alleged failure to pay, an alleged overstay, an alleged failure to display, or   otherwise. The point was reinforced in **Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande**   (Ref. K0DP5J30, 10 May 2024), in which His Honour Judge Evans held that particulars   of claim must set out the basic facts upon which the party relies to prove the claim.

4. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to   CPR 3.4 for failure to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.5.

The charge was in any event paid

5. Without prejudice to the above, and if the claim is not struck out, the Defendant   avers that the parking charge was paid. On 31 May 2025 — the date of the alleged   contravention — payment of the parking tariff of £1.00 was made to the Claimant at   the car park by contactless debit card. This is evidenced by the bank record, which   records a debit card payment on 31 May 2025 to "XXXXX PAYMENT MACHINE", business type   "Automobile Parking Meters, Lots and Garages". Payment having plainly been made, the   Claimant is put to strict proof that payment was *not* made in accordance with the   notified terms.

6. The Claimant is further put to strict proof of the alleged contravention itself. The   Particulars assert an entry time of 12:26 and an exit time of 12:53, but no   evidence in support has been produced. The Claimant's own record shows an entry   image bearing no verifiable date or time stamp, and shows no exit image whatsoever.   A bare assertion of times, unsupported by properly timestamped evidence, does not   discharge the Claimant's burden of proving the contravention on the balance of   probabilities. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the precise times of entry and   exit by dated and timestamped evidence.

7. On being made aware of the charge, the driver promptly submitted an appeal via the   Claimant's website, providing the evidence of payment referred to above. The   Claimant's system acknowledged this by issuing an email-address verification (XXXXXXXXXXXX, 4 August 2025). The Claimant never substantively responded to the   appeal or to the evidence of payment, and issued no further communication until the   Claim Form. The Claimant is put to proof of how it dealt with the appeal and the   evidence of payment submitted to it.

The sums claimed are not recoverable

8. The sums claimed are denied. The Claimant claims £186.02 (comprising an original   charge inflated by an added "fee"/damages and interest), plus a court fee and £50.00   in "legal representative's costs". The addition of a "fee" or damages above the   original advertised parking charge is an attempt at double recovery and is not   recoverable. In **ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis** [2015] UKSC 67 the Supreme Court held   that a parking charge of that character already more than covered the costs of   enforcement (the DVLA look-up and the automated letter chain). The same heads of cost   cannot lawfully be recovered a second time as an added "fee". The Defendant relies   also on **ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores** [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), in which such   inflation of the charge was held to be disproportionate and penal. Interest on the   impermissible sums should likewise be disallowed.

9. The £50.00 claimed as "legal representative's costs" is denied. The Claimant is not   represented by an instructed regulated legal firm; the sum appears to relate to   in-house staff and is not properly recoverable, particularly on the small claims   track where costs are restricted by CPR 27.14.

Standing and authority

10. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue and enforce parking    charges at this location. DVLA keeper data is supplied only on the basis of prior    written landowner authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to    sue, and of the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement in force on the    date in question.

11. Further and in any event, the Claimant is put to strict proof that a Notice to    Keeper compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was served    within the period, and in the form, required by that Schedule. The first    communication of any kind received by the Defendant in connection with this matter    was a debt demand dated 31 July 2025 — two months after the alleged event — seeking    £140.00. No Notice to Keeper was received before that debt demand.

Conclusion

12. In the premises: the Particulars of Claim are defective and fall to be struck out    under CPR 3.4; the charge was in any event paid; the alleged contravention and the    Claimant's authority are unevidenced; the appeal and evidence of payment were    ignored; and the sums claimed include impermissible and irrecoverable amounts. The    Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out or dismiss the claim.

Le_Kirk

Any reason why you are not using the standard defence?

babelfish42

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82118924#Comment_82118924

Forgive me, but I do find forums to be a little overwhelming. As such I would hugely appreciate a direct link to 'the standard defence' if you would be so kind?

Le_Kirk

One click back and scroll up to: -

'Template' defence suggestion - NB: ultimately, your choice of defence wording is your own