Civil Enforcement Limited Court Claim received for a Parking Invoice

[SL1210]

Hi All,

My wife received a court claim 13/04/2026 from Civil Enforcement Limited for an unpaid parking Invoice, which she was unable to appeal against at the time as we were out of the country and the time for doing so had elapsed on our return.

We have been onto MCOL and submitted an AoS, assistance is request in drafting a defence.

See the attached documents for your perusal on comments.

Thanks in advance.

[des8]

If no one else steps in, I'll get back to you at the weekend.
I'm a tad busy at the moment!

[des8]

I'm three quarters done ... will complete tomorrow!

[SL1210]

Thank you in advance for your assistance des8

[des8]

Here's the sort of defence I would be considering.
Please don't copy and paste it.... read & check it and if you want, use it as a basis.
In any case you need to set it out properly and ensure the paragraphs are numbered correctly.
At the end is a statement of truth... look at the possible sanctions for being untruthful so take care

It will need to be sent either by post or as an attachment to an email.

Claim No:

In the County Court Centre Claim No.

Between

MET Parking Services Limited (Claimant)

and

Mrs ………. (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant received the claim No: from Civil Enforcement Ltd on .
2. Unless otherwise stated in this Defence:
   
   i) the Defendant uses the same terminology as the Claimant has employed in the Particulars of Claim; and
   
   ii) the Defendant denies each and every allegation or that the Claimant is entitled to any relief.

INTRODUCTION

1. This claim has been issued against the Defendant in connection with the Defendant’s refusal to pay a private parking charge which the Claimant alleges that the Defendant is liable to pay. For the reasons set out in this Defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.

CLAIMANT’S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

1. By way of general comment, it should be noted that whilst the Defendant intends to respond to the issues raised by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim, she cannot do so with complete accuracy because the Claimant has not pleaded its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a). There is not a concise statement of the facts which discloses a cause of action, rather the Claimant has merely provided a series of generalised statements which in turn makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as she does not know with any certainty the basis of the Claimant’s case. For example, the particulars allege that the Defendant:
   1. entered into a contract with the Claimant but does not explain how or on what basis the contract was entered into;
   2. does not state how the claimed sum has been computed
   3. does not state how the alleged contract has been breached
   4. is liable but does not particularise the basis of that allegation.
2. The Defendant is surprised by the haziness of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a solicitor and as such, the lack of compliance with the CPR to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. The court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to:
3. i) make an order that unless the Defendant files and serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant; or
4. ii) if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim entirely as on the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
5. iii) exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.

APPLICABLE LAW

1. Section 56 together with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) provides landowners with powers to manage parking on their land. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of POFA stipulates that the liability for an unpaid parking charge may only be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if certain conditions as prescribed in Schedule 4 are met.

Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, and noting the Claimant pursues the Defendant without stating in what capacity, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best she is able.

DEFENDANT’S LIABILITY AS DRIVER

1. The Claimant has failed to produce any supporting evidence that demonstrates the

Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the alleged contravention took place, It is the

Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s allegations are nothing more than a fishing expedition and the Claimant has no knowledge of the driver.

2. The Claim is for “money relating to a Parking Charge for breach of contract term/conditions for parking in a private car park”

3. Following receipt of the claim and a visit to the location the Defendant avers that the signs at the location are incapable of forming a contract as they are forbidding in character. They
state “PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY” so any driver not in possession of a permit is forbidden to park there. It is trite law that one cannot contract to do that which is forbidden.

4.It follows there was no contract sothe resulting charge is a penalty and not a contractual charge

5. The Defendant also avers the signs do not actually state any terms and conditions which could be breached

6 . The Defendant notes the Parking Charge stated on the PCN and signs is £100, and yet the claim is for £170
7. It is admitted that the signs state in small letters that additional costs/recovery charges may be incurred, and assumes that is the reason for the additional £70 mentioned
in paragraph 6 above.

1. 8.the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to claim the recovery of its costs in respect
   
   of the Parking Charge. As described above, there was no adequate signage giving fair
   
   and reasonable notice of the parking terms and it is trite law that one cannot incorporate
   
   terms and conditions after the fact, without giving reasonable notice beforehand.
   
   
   9.Further and alternatively, if (which is denied) it is found that reasonable notice
   
   was given, the Defendant will say that the term was contrary to the requirement of
   
   good faith which causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment
   
   of the Defendant. Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the
   
   Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
   
   10.The Defendant will rely on the following points:
   1. Section 68 of the CRA requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language. The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that:
      1. the font size of the term is small making it illegible from a reasonable distance; the term ought to have been presented in a manner which was far more legible considering the amount of space available on the sign itself; and
      2. the term refers to ‘additional costs/recovery charges’ but the terms described are vague contrary to the guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority on unfair contract terms.

0.1.3(a). .In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116

the SC found the parking charge (£85) was a genuine estimate of the costs

of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if

its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of

the judgment)

1. (b) Whilst not binding on this court the Defendant respectfully refers the following case: G4QZ465V (Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Wilkinson -1st July 2020) where District Judge Jackson considered a similar claim to be an abuse of process under the The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sch 2 and section 61/ 61(1)/ 67). He found that striking out the claim was the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court could be shown

DEFENDANT’S LIABILITY ASREGISTERED KEEPER

1 The defendant admits being the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXXXX at the relevant time

2. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle.

3 The Defendant repeats paragraphs 3 -10 in the section “Defendant’s liability as the driver of
the vehicle” above

4The Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions
under POFA 2012 in order for the registered keeper to be held liable for the Parking Charge in that
5. To the extent that the Claimant seeks to recover the costs incurred in pursuing the Parking Charge, the Defendant denies that such sums are recoverable for the following reason:

1. 1. contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant has provided no evidence that it has
      the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge.
   2. paragraph 4(5) of POFA provides that the maximum amount which may be recovered from the registered keeper is the total amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper. The unpaid parking charges specified in the notice were £100.
   3. It follows that any liability owed by the keeper to the Claimant is several to the driver’s liability and is limited to an amount that does not exceed the unpaid parking charges. These unspecified additional costs are not recoverable and the Claimant’s pursuit of them amounts to an abuse of process which taints the totality of the claim.

The Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.