Claim form from CEL ( Civil enforcement LTD)

[Alice1604]

Can anyone advise what I should say in my defense please?

[Alice1604]

I have contacted MCOL and these are the dates recorded, when should i submit my defence by? Advice really appreciated, Thanks

A claim was issued against you on 10/06/2025

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 13/06/2025 at 16:57:53

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 16/06/2025 at 01:05:49

[des8]

To file & serve your defence you had 28 days from date of issue plus 5 days to allow for postal delays I.E. your defence needed to be in by 13th July.

I'll try and draft a defence this pm for you which you will need to send as an attachment to an email asap and hope!

[des8]

1. Unless otherwise stated in this Defence:
2. 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.
   iii) all references to paragraph numbers are to paragraph numbers in the Particulars of Claim

INTRODUCTION

1. This claim has been issued against the Defendant in connection with an alleged unpaid private parking charge. . 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, he cannot do so with complete accuracy because the Claimant has not pleaded its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a), and has not responded to a CPR31.14 request for disclosure of documents. 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 he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant's case. For example, the particulars:
   1. allege there was a contract with the Claimant but does not explain how or on what basis the contract was entered into
   2. do not indicate how the defendant is liable for the parking charge
   3. claims "£170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages" without indicating how the total is computed
2. The Defendant is surprised by the haziness of the particulars given that the Claimant often issues these claims 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

(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

(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

(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.

LIABILITY AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE

1. The Defendant denies she was the driver at the time of the alleged incident
2. The Claimant has failed to provide any supporting evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Claimant's allegation is entirely baseless and nothing more than a fishing expedition which the Defendant considers to be an abuse of process.
3. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, a request was made by the Defendant asking the Claimant to provide evidence establishing that the Claimant has authority to manage and enforce the car park by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012; and
4. Despite the requests as referred to in paragraph 2, the Claimant has refused or otherwise failed to provide the necessary evidence or explanation to establish the Claimant's authority to enforce the Parking Charge.
5. In the absence of evidence that the Defendant was the driver, it is the Defendant's contention, and the court is invited to make an inference, that the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle.
6. If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge as the driver, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that the terms were 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.(CRA) 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/costs (you need to check what the signs say) on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that:

(i)the font size of the term is extremely 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 blank space available on the sign itself; and
(ii)the term refers to ‘charges/costs’ but fails to explain what charges the Claimant is seeking to recover. Accordingly, the term described is vague and ambiguous contrary to the guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority on unfair contract terms.

7. In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. The S C 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).
8. In this claim unspecified damages (presumably the "charges/costs"(you need to check what the signs say)mentioned on the signs) additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b))

LIABILITY AS REGISTERED KEEPER

1. The Defendant admits being the keeper of the vehicle reg number:
2. The particulars of claim do not indicate the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as Keeper as allowed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
3. There is no claim lodged against the defendant as keeper

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out in this defence the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle for the Parking Charge, and has not pursued the Defendant as the Keeper.
Therefore the claimant is not entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all


Sign
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


Above is a defence which hopefully you can send in time.
Send to:
ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk
In subject line insert the "case number" "civil Enforcement Ltd v your name" "Defence" "urgent"

[Alice1604]

1. Unless otherwise stated in this Defence:
2. 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.
   iii) all references to paragraph numbers are to paragraph numbers in the Particulars of Claim

INTRODUCTION

1. This claim has been issued against the Defendant in connection with an alleged unpaid private parking charge. . 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, he cannot do so with complete accuracy because the Claimant has not pleaded its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a), and has not responded to a CPR31.14 request for disclosure of documents. 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 he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant's case. For example, the particulars:
   1. allege there was a contract with the Claimant but does not explain how or on what basis the contract was entered into
   2. do not indicate how the defendant is liable for the parking charge
   3. claims "£170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages" without indicating how the total is computed
2. The Defendant is surprised by the haziness of the particulars given that the Claimant often issues these claims 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

(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

(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

(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.

LIABILITY AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE

1. The Defendant denies she was the driver at the time of the alleged incident
2. The Claimant has failed to provide any supporting evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Claimant's allegation is entirely baseless and nothing more than a fishing expedition which the Defendant considers to be an abuse of process.
3. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, a request was made by the Defendant asking the Claimant to provide evidence establishing that the Claimant has authority to manage and enforce the car park by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012; and
4. Despite the requests as referred to in paragraph 2, the Claimant has refused or otherwise failed to provide the necessary evidence or explanation to establish the Claimant's authority to enforce the Parking Charge.
5. In the absence of evidence that the Defendant was the driver, it is the Defendant's contention, and the court is invited to make an inference, that the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle.
6. If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge as the driver, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that the terms were 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.(CRA) 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/costs (you need to check what the signs say) on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that:

(i)the font size of the term is extremely 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 blank space available on the sign itself; and
(ii)the term refers to ‘charges/costs’ but fails to explain what charges the Claimant is seeking to recover. Accordingly, the term described is vague and ambiguous contrary to the guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority on unfair contract terms.

7. In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. The S C 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).
8. In this claim unspecified damages (presumably the "charges/costs"(you need to check what the signs say)mentioned on the signs) additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b))

LIABILITY AS REGISTERED KEEPER

1. The Defendant admits being the keeper of the vehicle reg number:
2. The particulars of claim do not indicate the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as Keeper as allowed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
3. There is no claim lodged against the defendant as keeper

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out in this defence the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle for the Parking Charge, and has not pursued the Defendant as the Keeper.
Therefore the claimant is not entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all


Sign
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


Above is a defence which hopefully you can send in time.
Send to:
ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk
In subject line insert the "case number" "civil Enforcement Ltd v your name" "Defence" "urgent"

Thank you very much for your reply. Unfortunately my LB didn't update properly and I didn't see your reply I Did submit a defense via MCOL. They still allowed it as CEL had not made any actions to get a default judgement. Would it still be worth submitting your defense? If so should I submit it via MCOL if still possible or send to the email address you gave?

Could I start by saying I had some legal advice and want to add to my defense?

Many thanks in advance

Ally

PS. I will post my defense for you to read. I hope it isnt too bad

[Alice1604]

Thank you very much for your reply. Unfortunately my LB didn't update properly and I didn't see your reply I Did submit a defense via MCOL. They still allowed it as CEL had not made any actions to get a default judgement. Would it still be worth submitting your defense? If so should I submit it via MCOL if still possible or send to the email address you gave?

Could I start by saying I had some legal advice and want to add to my defense?

Many thanks in advance

Ally

PS. I will post my defense for you to read. I hope it isnt too bad

** I am the defendant and the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced in the claim. I deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

The alleged parking event took place on 10/04/2024. I was not the driver at the time. The vehicle is a Motability vehicle used to transport my disabled son to hospital appointments. On that day, the vehicle was being used to take him to a medical appointment.

Upon receiving the Parking Charge Notice, I submitted a notification via the claimant’s website stating that I was not the driver. I provided this information promptly and in good faith. I received no acknowledgement.

I later received correspondence from a debt recovery company, despite having already notified the original party that I was not the driver. I attempted to contact the recovery company directly to resolve the matter, but did not receive any response.

I was surprised and disappointed that a parking charge was issued in relation to a disability vehicle parked at a hospital for a medical appointment. I believe reasonable adjustments should apply in such circumstances.

The original charge was £60. The current claim seeks £185.84, including £15.84 interest. I consider this an unfair escalation. Had the matter been acknowledged at the time, It would have been resolved at the original amount.

I have seen no evidence that the claimant has followed the legal steps required under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the registered keeper liable in the absence of driver identification.

I therefore ask the court to dismiss the claim. I also reserve the right to request costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g), as the claimant escalated this matter despite being informed that I was not the driver and did not respond to reasonable attempts to engage.**

[des8]

you may amend your defence but need permission from the court or the claimant.
You will also have to pay an application fee which from memory is £100 if claimant agrees, but £255 if not.

The defence is fine and more or less says the same, but I would not have stated the matter "would have been resolved at the original amount." as it could be interpreted that you are admitting liability for the charge

Mediation will be offered by the court, but assuming you don't reach a settlement agreement, you will then need to write a witness statement.
Although there is no hurry you might like to make a start on it.

[Alice1604]

you may amend your defence but need permission from the court or the claimant.
You will also have to pay an application fee which from memory is £100 if claimant agrees, but £255 if not.

The defence is fine and more or less says the same, but I would not have stated the matter "would have been resolved at the original amount." as it could be interpreted that you are admitting liability for the charge

Mediation will be offered by the court, but assuming you don't reach a settlement agreement, you will then need to write a witness statement.
Although there is no hurry you might like to make a start on it.

Thank you for your reply Yes I did think the same when I read your brilliant response! I genuinely wasn't the driver and I told them that but they kept pursuing me and ignored that fact. It's wrong that they are chasing me for something I have absolutely nothing to do with. Since my last post I have received another letter from CEL which says its from their legal team and includes a copy of their Directions questionnaire. If its gone to court should they be contacting me? I don't trust them and have no intentions of sending them any information, I will wait for the court to ask and tell them it has nothing to do with me and I was not the driver. Is this form legit? Thanks again for your advice its really appreciated.

[Alice1604]

you may amend your defence but need permission from the court or the claimant.
You will also have to pay an application fee which from memory is £100 if claimant agrees, but £255 if not.

The defence is fine and more or less says the same, but I would not have stated the matter "would have been resolved at the original amount." as it could be interpreted that you are admitting liability for the charge

Mediation will be offered by the court, but assuming you don't reach a settlement agreement, you will then need to write a witness statement.
Although there is no hurry you might like to make a start on it.

Here are pictures of the form

[Alice1604]

des8 I'm not sure if relevant but I have just logged into my MCOL account and there has been no update from the court in regards to this letter from CEL.

[des8]

Everything is going smoothly.
When one engages in litigation one is required to send all communications to both court and opposition, so CEL are acting properly sending you a copy of their Direction Questionnaire

You will have to complete a Directions Questionnaire as well.
You can wait for the court to send it, but most people download it ( https://www.gov.uk/government/public...l-claims-track) before the court sends it.
You need to complete it and file in court and serve on the claimant.

If you need help completing it, just ask. Be sure to request the case is heard in your local court.

You do not send anything else (eg photos etc) to the court until you receive court instructions, but you might as well start drafting your witness statement.

[Alice1604]

Do I really have to go to court for something I haven’t done? It seems very wrong that my time is being wasted because CEL have a substandard process My son has a severe long term illness and his care is extensive. I’m covering a lot of that and it’s exhausting; this is just another stress and so unfair. I’m an honest person and if I had committed an offence I would hold my hands up and pay the fine. I would very much appreciate your help in filling in the directions questionnaire should I upload one?

[des8]

I appreciate your situation is very stressful, and the thought of a court hearing, and the anticipated disturbance to your routine only increases that stress.

The court hearing itself is not as fearsome as many think.
Mostly quite relaxed, sitting round a table in a small room, without wigs .
The judge conducts the hearing, questioning and listening to both sides.
There are no shouts of "objection" etc.
The judge might adjourn the hearing for a short time while he ponders his decision before delivering the judgment.

After the court has received your Directions Questionnaire, the claim will be allocated to the small claims track and you will be instructed to go to mediation.
This is now more or less compulsory.
You do not actually go anywhere as the mediation is by phone.
The mediator will firstly speak to the claimant, and then to you.
He will, if he thinks a compromise can be reached, then shuffle from one to the other trying to arrange an agreement

Mediation will be your chance to negotiate a payment smaller than the claim .... how small will depend on the willingness of the other side.

However there is a play of brinkmanship here.
You have a very strong defence... you weren't the driver so cannot be liable for the charge, and they are not claiming against you as the keeper as they have not acted under the auspices of PoFA 2012.
It is very possible that if you don't reach an agreement at mediation they will continue the pressure till the last minute when they will discontinue the claim.(not an unusual outcome but not guaranteed)
This means at mediation you could suggest purely for pragmatic reasons (time & cost) you would be willing to settle the matter for a token payment of e.g.. £20 and th work up to a maximum.

Normally I would suggest going to court, but everyone's situation is different and I can see that compromise would be a more satisfactory outcome for you, even though it is most unfair.

Regarding the form N180, i would recommend downloading it for completion now.
If you are unclear about any of the questions do not hesitate to ask.

[Alice1604]

I appreciate your situation is very stressful, and the thought of a court hearing, and the anticipated disturbance to your routine only increases that stress.

The court hearing itself is not as fearsome as many think.
Mostly quite relaxed, sitting round a table in a small room, without wigs .
The judge conducts the hearing, questioning and listening to both sides.
There are no shouts of "objection" etc.
The judge might adjourn the hearing for a short time while he ponders his decision before delivering the judgment.

After the court has received your Directions Questionnaire, the claim will be allocated to the small claims track and you will be instructed to go to mediation.
This is now more or less compulsory.
You do not actually go anywhere as the mediation is by phone.
The mediator will firstly speak to the claimant, and then to you.
He will, if he thinks a compromise can be reached, then shuffle from one to the other trying to arrange an agreement

Mediation will be your chance to negotiate a payment smaller than the claim .... how small will depend on the willingness of the other side.

However there is a play of brinkmanship here.
You have a very strong defence... you weren't the driver so cannot be liable for the charge, and they are not claiming against you as the keeper as they have not acted under the auspices of PoFA 2012.
It is very possible that if you don't reach an agreement at mediation they will continue the pressure till the last minute when they will discontinue the claim.(not an unusual outcome but not guaranteed)
This means at mediation you could suggest purely for pragmatic reasons (time & cost) you would be willing to settle the matter for a token payment of e.g.. £20 and th work up to a maximum.

Normally I would suggest going to court, but everyone's situation is different and I can see that compromise would be a more satisfactory outcome for you, even though it is most unfair.

Regarding the form N180, i would recommend downloading it for completion now.
If you are unclear about any of the questions do not hesitate to ask.

Hi Des8

I have just noticed on their Directions Questionnaire that they have check YES to part B (Suitability for determination without a hearing) so have agreed to a judge reading case papers and making a decision. Should i call bluff and get them in court? I am not going to take responsibility for this fine, its not mine. Of course I will follow your advice but I really don't want to take responsibility for something I haven't done. How can I mediate with someone who is accusing me of something I haven't done? its illogical

I have attached the letter that I got from the court acknowledging my defense in case its useful.

[Alice1604]

des8 I am filling in the questionnaire and would appreciate some advice if possible.

1- What do I put in 'Name of court' box?

2- Part C. Track - Can I tick no and give the reason that i was not the driver; I am registered keeper and as CEL are pursuing me as driver not keeper the claim is void?

3- determination without a hearing - Should I tick yes or no? Would it be better to force a hearing even if they push the small claims paper determination pilot and over rule me? To show I'm serious about not taking responsibility? They should be made to answer why they pursued me as driver after i told them i wasn't.

4- Can/should i refuse mediation on the ground I have nothing to mediate as I did not commit the offence, I wasn't the driver?

5- Can I write to the court and ask why they are allowing CEL to pursue me as a driver when i am merely the registered keeper and they are clearly not following the legal procedure?

These people really need holding to account for their unlawful actions and judges should be harsh on them. They are bullies and harass people.