Civil Enforcement Ltd Claim form

MrJenkinsEsq

It's not good but it's not fatal. It's not a formal admission of liability. They'll try to construe it as an informal one. You need to maintain the position that you did not admit liability. You offered to pay simply to prevent escalation and make the whole thing go away.

Separately, conceding facts is not the same as admitting liability. So saying, "I" parked/overstayed/whatever does identify the driver but isn't an admission of liability. All the facts could be true and the charge might still not have the legal backing to make it enforceable.

Le_Kirk

You have a court claim N1SDT form, so why are you writing to the DPO of the parking company? A defence is what you should be constructing using the template defence and, as advised by @Gr1pr, refuting the POC from the claim form in your paragraph #3.

Bossbarr

I did it in good faith at the beginning of this saga. As it was the only only communication line I could find. See OP.

Le_Kirk

OK but how are you getting on with your defence? If the date of issue of the claim form was 24/08/26, which you have not confirmed, then you still have time but don't let it slip. Have you completed the AoS?

Bossbarr

I have completed the AoS. So have until the end of September. I have written a "paragraph 3" (see below) defence in here which I'm just waiting to be confirmed by the experts then I'll submit my defence.

"

(a) The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are vague, generic, and fail to set out the concise facts relied upon to establish a cause of action, contrary to CPR 16.4(1)(a) and Practice Direction 16. The POC fails to specify the exact terms alleged to have been breached, the exact conduct relied upon, or whether the Defendant is sued as driver or hirer.

(b) The Defendant draws attention to persuasive appellate authority in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan [2023] E7GM9W44, where HHJ Murch struck out an identical CEL claim because the POC failed to set out the specific conduct amounting to a breach of terms. The Court is invited to strike out this claim under CPR 3.4 for the exact same failure.

(c) Without prejudice to the above, if the claim relates to an alleged overstay, the Defendant was denied statutory notice and due process due to the Claimant misdirecting initial notices to a previous address. Upon being informed of the Defendant's current address, the Claimant failed to reissue the Notice to Hirer accompanied by statutory lease documentation required under Schedule 4, Paragraph 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), forfeiting any right to hold the Defendant liable as hirer.

(d) Further, the Claimant operated non-functional communication channels and explicitly refused to provide a 10-digit POPLA Verification Code, breaching Section 23 of the BPA Code of Practice and intentionally obstructing independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

"

Le_Kirk

What have you put as the end paragraph #2? Keeper only or keeper and driver?

Your paragraph #3 does not seem to tie in with the standard defence template where no breach is pleaded. This can be found in the template defence thread where there is a link to it.

Bossbarr

I have already sent an email to their data protection team admitting that I over stayed in their car park.

"

(a) The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are vague, generic, and fail to set out the concise facts relied upon to establish a cause of action, contrary to CPR 16.4(1)(a) and Practice Direction 16. The POC fails to specify the exact terms alleged to have been breached, the exact conduct relied upon, or whether the Defendant is sued as driver or hirer.

(b) The Defendant draws attention to persuasive appellate authority in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan [2023] E7GM9W44, where HHJ Murch struck out an identical CEL claim because the POC failed to set out the specific conduct amounting to a breach of terms. The Court is invited to strike out this claim under CPR 3.4 for the exact same failure.

(c) Without prejudice to the above, if the claim relates to an alleged overstay, the Defendant was denied statutory notice and due process due to the Claimant misdirecting initial notices to a previous address. Upon being informed of the Defendant's current address, the Claimant failed to reissue the Notice to Hirer accompanied by statutory lease documentation required under Schedule 4, Paragraph 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), forfeiting any right to hold the Defendant liable as hirer.

(d) Further, the Claimant operated non-functional communication channels and explicitly refused to provide a 10-digit POPLA Verification Code, breaching Section 23 of the BPA Code of Practice and intentionally obstructing independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

"

I'd like to go with this for my paragraph 3. What do you think?

I am the lessee and hirer.

Am I right to assume that the point of most of these defences is to deny everything. And because I have admitting to parking there then my defence changes?

Coupon-mad

The breach is pleaded.

Your defence is fine but why not read a few other recent CEL defences first? Search the forum for Leagrave and read the threads.

CEL will discontinue in the end, and you will never risk a CCJ. So don't go offering money at mediation stage. You sound like you will. Don't!

Just follow the 8 steps in the defence thread.