This came through from CEL directly as an email and I haven’t received anything from CNBC yet. So I do not have a deadline for the witness statement yet, but I have started working on it.It’s unlikely that CEL would file a witness statement without being directed to by the court, in which case the same deadline would apply to you, and you may not have received the letter with the relevant instructions, usually including the deadline for the claimant to pay the court fee and the date of the hearing, as in the post above by @DWMB2.
**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 fails adequately to disclose a cause of action against the Defendant.
2. The Particulars of Claim ("PoC") are sparse and fail to plead the Claimant's case with sufficient particularity. Accordingly, the Defendant is only able to file a skeleton Defence addressing the matters presently pleaded.
3. It is admitted only that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in the Particulars of Claim at the material time.
4. The Claimant has not pleaded whether the Defendant is pursued as the driver, the registered keeper, or on any other legal basis.
5. Although the Notice to Keeper referred to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has not pleaded any reliance upon Schedule 4 in the Particulars of Claim, nor pleaded the facts necessary to establish keeper liability. The Particulars of Claim do not identify the driver or explain the legal basis upon which the Defendant, as registered keeper, is alleged to be liable.
6. There is no legal obligation upon the registered keeper of a vehicle to identify the driver to a private parking operator, and the Defendant declines to do so.
7. There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion.
8. The Claimant has chosen not to plead any alternative basis of liability. In the absence of any pleaded basis upon which the Defendant, as registered keeper, may be held liable, and in the absence of any pleaded facts identifying the Defendant as the driver, the Claimant is put to strict proof that the Defendant is liable for the alleged contractual breach.
9. Accordingly, the Defendant denies that any liability to the Claimant has been established and denies that any sum is owed.
10. Upon becoming aware of the PCN, the Defendant notified the shop and the building owner, who recorded the PCN details and confirmed they would arrange for its cancellation. The Defendant reasonably relied on that assurance. Following receipt of the Letter Before Claim, the Defendant was informed that the cancellation had not been processed and was incorrectly told the cancellation period had expired.
11. The Defendant's position is that the Claimant's signage and payment arrangements did not clearly communicate the restriction now relied upon. The Defendant possesses contemporaneous documentary evidence relating to the operation of the Claimant's nominated payment system at the location and will rely upon that evidence, together with evidence relating to the site signage, at the appropriate stage of these proceedings.
12. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.
DRAFT ORDER
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are) relied on and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim [as it could have done pursuant to CPR PD7C.5.2(2) but it chose not to do that.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence each of which will be followed further referrals to the judge for case management.
Order
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by
an application on notice which must be filed at this Court not more than 5
days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be
made.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim 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 16.7.3(1);
(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 attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. 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) Failed to 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).
7. The signage at the location prominently advertises "PHONE AND PAY PUBLIC PARKING" together with parking tariffs. The alleged restriction upon which the Claimant relies is contained within significantly less prominent wording. The overall presentation of the signage was such that a reasonable motorist would understand that parking was available through the advertised payment system.
8.Prior to the material date, the Defendant had legitimately parked at the same location using the Claimant's nominated Phone & Pay payment system. On 8 May 2025 the Defendant obtained a completed parking receipt showing the correct location code, vehicle registration, parking period and a parking charge of £0.00.
9. Accordingly, when parking again on 9 May 2025, the Defendant again followed the payment process specified by the Claimant's signage. Having successfully used that process previously and having received a completed £0.00 parking receipt for the same location on the previous day, the Defendant reasonably believed that they had complied with the parking arrangements.
10. The Defendant does not know why the Claimant's own payment system generated a £0.00 parking session. That is a matter within the Claimant's own knowledge. However, the Defendant reasonably relied upon the payment system specified by the Claimant's signage and had no reason to believe that further action was required.
11. The Defendant subsequently revisited the location and observed that the same Phone & Pay application continued to present a parking session at that location showing a parking charge of £0.00. A contemporaneous screenshot was retained before the operator subsequently changed parking providers. Whilst this later screenshot does not establish the operation of the system on the material date, it supports the Defendant's evidence that the payment system presented £0.00 parking sessions for that location.
12. The Defendant also possesses records demonstrating that, on other occasions when payment was required at the same location, valid parking charges were successfully paid using the same application. This is consistent with the Defendant's intention to comply with the advertised parking arrangements whenever payment was required and inconsistent with any suggestion of deliberate non-compliance.
13. The Claimant is put to strict proof that:
(a) the signage displayed on the material date adequately and prominently communicated the contractual terms relied upon;
(b) the payment system accurately reflected those contractual terms;
(c) the payment system clearly informed motorists if parking was unavailable or further steps were required; and
(d) the Claimant possessed the necessary landowner authority to offer parking contracts and to pursue litigation in its own name.
14. The Defendant avers that the alleged contractual terms were not transparent or sufficiently prominent as required by sections 62 and 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Any ambiguity must be interpreted in favour of the consumer.
15. This matter is readily distinguishable from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. Unlike that case, the issues here concern whether the contractual terms were adequately communicated and whether the Defendant reasonably relied upon the Claimant's own advertised payment system.
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:
Subject: Response to your Letter Before Claim Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence you place reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a serial litigator, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.
2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between you and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement between you and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.
5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.
I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).
If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).
Until you comply and provide the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.
Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
What was the name of this moronic POPLA assessor? Quite clearly, they have had the BPA chip fully inserted and activated.Unfortunately I do not recollect the name of the assessor, and I am unable to access the appeal outcome anymore on the POPLA website.QuoteThe terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. I am satisfied that the signage on site meets the single code of practice. Furthermore, the signage is clear that public parking is Monday to Friday 6pm – 7am. The signage does not mislead motorists as the font is large and clear when public parking is. The smaller writing tells motorists that public parking is only permitted 7am – 6pm, Monday to Friday. But is still clear for the motorists to see. The obligation lies with the motorist to read the full sign and ensure they are fully aware of the terms and conditions. Furthermore, the signage does not breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it is clear, abundant. Additionally, that they app payment details are clear and there to advertise the payment method only. It does not mislead motorists into thinking the app payment is at all times. The responsibility lies with the motorist to read the signage carefully.
That sign is in no way, shape or form unambiguous. The critical information about permit holders only between 7am and 6pm is hidden in tiny font and certainly wouldn't pass Lord Dennings' Red Hand Rule. The ambiguity is also present because it says a permit can be purchased.
I could go on but it is a waste of effort. DO NOT pay a penny. The POPLA decision is not binding on you. Should this ever reach a court room, they would not stand a chance trying to convince a really independent arbiter that the sign does not fail the CRA.
For now, you can safely ignore all useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and this is easily fought with the advice we provide.
Edited to add: I just asked a judge about this signage and he agreed and couldn't see a judge finding for the claimant on this one.
The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. I am satisfied that the signage on site meets the single code of practice. Furthermore, the signage is clear that public parking is Monday to Friday 6pm – 7am. The signage does not mislead motorists as the font is large and clear when public parking is. The smaller writing tells motorists that public parking is only permitted 7am – 6pm, Monday to Friday. But is still clear for the motorists to see. The obligation lies with the motorist to read the full sign and ensure they are fully aware of the terms and conditions. Furthermore, the signage does not breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it is clear, abundant. Additionally, that they app payment details are clear and there to advertise the payment method only. It does not mislead motorists into thinking the app payment is at all times. The responsibility lies with the motorist to read the signage carefully.
3. App Confirms That No Payment Option Was Offered
I attempted to pay using the official app (evidence attached – screenshot taken at the same location)...
4. The Operator Has Not Identified the Driver
This Notice to Keeper has been issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), but no evidence has been supplied that the operator has identified the driver. I am the registered keeper and do not admit to being the driver. Liability under PoFA must therefore be established strictly according to the requirements of the Act, which have not been demonstrated.
Can you see what's wrong above? If you are claiming no Keeper liability, whilst there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm, it is very easy to inadvertently blab the drivers identity if you don't refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".
3. App Confirms That No Payment Option Was Offered
I attempted to pay using the official app (evidence attached – screenshot taken at the same location)...
4. The Operator Has Not Identified the Driver
This Notice to Keeper has been issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), but no evidence has been supplied that the operator has identified the driver. I am the registered keeper and do not admit to being the driver. Liability under PoFA must therefore be established strictly according to the requirements of the Act, which have not been demonstrated.