Claim form from CEL for alleged breach of terms notified on signage

Squirrel2026

Good evening
I am in the process of drafting my defence for a claim issued by Civil Enforcement Limited. The charge was issued in 2023 and I intend to defend on the following basis:

- the terms alleged to have been breached are not stated in the POC
- the length of time that has elapsed means that the circumstances are no longer clear
- the claimant has acted unreasonably in its pursuit of the claim as all previous correspondence failed to provide an appropriate means by which to communicate with them

I was just wondering if I should also add something to the effect that the sum claimed is unreasonable. The car park in question is a free car park and when appealing the charge I provided evidence that i had visited and made purchases at the business for which the car park is intended. no opportunity to be register for a permit was given by the vendor.

Any advice on anything else I should include would be much appreciated, I have seen the example defence on here and will borrow this to write mine!

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

"I was just wondering if I should also add something to the effect that the sum claimed is unreasonable."

No you can't. That argument was killed off by the Supreme Court in 2015.

Why aren't you basing your defence on the forum's Template Defence and/or adapting (or plain copying) the many CEL defences from threads this Summer?

You can find shedloads by searching the forum for Leagrave defence.

MrJenkinsEsq

no opportunity to be register for a permit was given by the vendor.

If the sign needed a permit and the shop gave you no way to get one, that's a defence in its own right. CEL set it up so you needed the shop to comply, so that failure is theirs. Was there a terminal inside, and did anything point you to it?

That comes before any argument about the car park being free and the sum unreasonable, which cm is right about being a losing argument.

Squirrel2026

Thank you both for replying - i've now obtained a copy of the example defence which is super helpful. If i'm using that then I am essentially saying the POC are too vague and too much time has passed. I'm guessing at this stage I should not add in any additional mention of the requirement for a permit. Is it likely that the claimant will then provide evidence of the terms alleged to have been breached at which point i would then make my further points?

And does this sound ok to add in?

'The Claimant has failed to comply with relevant pre-action conduct in relation to the requirement to exchange sufficient information, since the Claimant's pre-action communications failed to provide an appropriate means of response for the Defendant. The Defendant has, on several occasions, attempted to communicate with the Claimant but found all means of contact provided led to automated payment facilities and not a genuine means of communicating with the Claimant.'

Gr1pr

Witness Statements and Exhibits bundle stage happens a few weeks before the hearing date, not at this early stage

Coupon-mad

"Is it likely that the claimant will then provide evidence of the terms alleged to have been breached at which point i would then make my further points?"

If this is an in-house CEL claim, they do send a template early WS (very scarce detail) which you should ignore.

They are not proceeding to hearings. They'll discontinue in 2027, at the last gasp, when they realise you haven't fallen for it.