Subject: URGENT – Claim No. M7KF8736 – Civil Enforcement Ltd v [Defendant's Name] – Failure to Comply with Court Order
To: hearingsdurhamcty@justice.gov.uk
Cc: [defendant's email address], info@dcblegal.co.uk
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re: Claim No. M7KF8736 – Civil Enforcement Ltd v [Defendant's Full Name]
Order dated 28 April 2025 before District Judge Reynolds
I write with urgency to inform the Court that the Claimant has failed to comply with paragraph 1 of the above-referenced Order, which required them to file and serve detailed amended Particulars of Claim by 4pm on Tuesday, 13 May 2025, failing which the claim would be struck out.
As of today’s date, I have not received any amended Particulars of Claim, nor any communication whatsoever from the Claimant or their legal representative, DCB Legal Ltd.
Furthermore, I am not aware of any application having been made by the Claimant for relief from sanctions or for an extension of time. As such, the Claimant remains in breach of paragraph 1 of the Order, and the sanction of strike-out should now take effect.
I also note that paragraph 2 of the Order required the Defendant to file an amended defence within 42 days of the Order. However, in the absence of the further and better Particulars of Claim ordered by the Court – which are necessary to identify the case I am required to meet – it is not possible to comply with paragraph 2. The Claimant’s failure to act has therefore placed me in a procedurally unfair position.
I respectfully request that the Court confirm that the claim is now struck out in accordance with the terms of the Order dated 28 April 2025.
In the event that the Court confirms that the claim stands struck out for non-compliance with the unless order, I respectfully request that the Court consider a modest costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g), on the basis that the Claimant’s failure to file the amended Particulars of Claim has caused unnecessary time and effort. I am a litigant in person and will provide a brief schedule of costs if invited to do so.
Please confirm receipt of this email and advise whether any further action is required on my part.
Yours faithfully,
[Defendant's Full Name]
[Defendant’s Postal Address]
[Defendant’s Email Address]
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Conduct of Mediator During Small Claims Mediation
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the conduct of a court-appointed mediator during a recent small claims mediation.
The mediation took place on [insert date], in relation to County Court claim number [insert claim number]. During the course of the telephone mediation, the mediator made statements which I believe were inaccurate, inappropriate, and potentially prejudicial.
Specifically, the mediator stated that they would “forward this information to [my] local court” and that I would “receive a letter in due course instructing [me] to file the relevant documents in a timely manner.” They further stated that “the judge will review and either make a decision or proceed to a hearing.”
I am concerned that this implies that the judge will be made aware of the content of the mediation discussion. As I understand it, mediation is intended to be a confidential and without-prejudice process. No information exchanged during the mediation should be disclosed to the court or to the judge who may ultimately hear the case. If the mediator intended to convey something different, it was not made clear, and I found the comments misleading and concerning.
I would appreciate confirmation that:• The confidentiality of the mediation has not been breached;
• No details of the discussion have been or will be passed to the court;
• Appropriate steps will be taken to ensure mediators are clear about the limits of their role and the confidentiality of the process.
I respectfully request that this matter be investigated, and I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your address]
[Your contact number]
[Claim number again for reference]
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.
5. The Defendant also attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order previously issued by a district judge at another court in a similar case. In that case, the court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
6. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
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.
Signed:
Date:
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not disclose any valid cause of action.
Preliminary Matter
2. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to comply with the mandatory requirements of CPR 16.4(1)(a), which states that the PoC must include a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies. The PoC are so deficient in particulars that they fail to disclose a cause of action, making it impossible for the Defendant to plead properly.
3. Specifically, the PoC lack:(a) The specific terms of the alleged contract that were purportedly breached;
(b) The precise signage locations, alleged terms and conditions displayed thereon, or details of how the alleged breach occurred;
(c) Attachment or details of the contract relied upon, contrary to CPR PD 16.7.5;
(d) Particularity as to the alleged breach, including its nature, time, and location;
(e) An explanation of how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) Clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. Furthermore, the Defendant notes that the PoC state the terms of the alleged contract included a provision for "Maximum 90 Minutes Free Parking." Upon inspecting the location, the Defendant confirms that the signage does not state "Maximum 90 Minutes Free Parking" but instead states "Maximum 60 Minutes Free Parking." This discrepancy undermines the validity of the claim as the PoC materially misstate the alleged terms of the contract.
5. The Defendant submits that this misrepresentation amounts to a failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because it:(i) Misstates the terms of the alleged contract, preventing the Defendant from understanding the nature of the alleged breach;
(ii) Misleads the court by presenting an incorrect version of the facts;
(iii) Creates uncertainty about the basis of the claim, particularly where the period of overstay is not specified in the PoC.
In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the court strikes out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) on the basis that:• The statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim; and
• The statement of case is an abuse of process.
5. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.
Alternative Submission
6. The Defendant submits that the correct course of action is for the court to strike out the claim due to the Claimant's clear and material failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The rules exist to ensure fairness, and the Claimant's non-compliance cannot be excused. The Defendant asserts that "rules are rules," and the Claimant has failed to follow them.
7. However, in the unlikely event that the court does not agree with the persuasive nature of the cited appellate decisions, the Defendant submits the following alternative:• The court should make an order requiring the Claimant to provide the following further and better detailed particulars:(a) Set out the specific terms of the alleged contract that were purportedly breached;
(b) Specify the precise signage locations, alleged terms and conditions displayed thereon, or details of how the alleged breach occurred;
(c) Provide attachment or details of the contract relied upon, as required by CPR PD 16.7.5;
(d) Provide particularity as to the alleged breach, including its nature, time, and location;
(e) Explain how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) Clarify whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
8. Without such particulars, the Defendant is unable to properly respond to the claim, resulting in unfairness and prejudice.
Draft Order
9. A draft order is appended to this defence, which the Defendant requests the court to consider adopting should the claim not be struck out at this stage.
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.
Signed:
Date:
Funnily enough, the red brick building across from Costa is the county court so I could take the magistrate there should it come to that