Free Traffic Legal Advice

.

Post arrived

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

That order is ridiculous.

A fully pleaded defence was filed in response to the claim. That defence addresses both the substance of the claim and the procedural defects, including:

- The failure to serve the claim form within 4 months of issue, contrary to CPR 7.5;
- The lack of jurisdiction following Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784;
- The failure of the Particulars of Claim to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a);
- The absence of any pleaded cause of action or contractual basis.

The defence also invited the Court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c), and included a draft order to that effect. This is a legitimate and efficient approach, consistent with CPR 16.5 and CPR 3.4.

Paragraphs 1–2 deny liability and establish standing.
Paragraphs 3–8 assert lack of jurisdiction due to expired claim form and defective service.
Paragraphs 9–13 challenge the adequacy of the Particulars of Claim under CPR 16.4.
Paragraphs 14–17 invite strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c).
Paragraph 18 reserves the right to amend if proper particulars are served.
This is a fully pleaded defence that incorporates strike-out grounds as part of the response to the claim — a legitimate and efficient approach under CPR 16.5 and CPR 3.4.

It appears the Court has mischaracterised the defence as an application.

I'll have to consult with a judge to see what they think of this and get back to you. You have very little time to get this sorted. This whole case has been a bit of a shambles unfortunately.

You will need send the following two documents as PDF attachments in an email to the court at enquiries.croydon.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and also CC the claimant at legal@ce-service.co.uk and also yourself. Include the following in the subject field of the email and the rest in the body:

Subject: Croydon County Court – Claim H3GM8008 – Civil Enforcement Ltd v Baruja – Clarification under CPR 3.3(5) and Defence

Dear Court,

Please find attached the Defendant’s clarification under CPR 3.3(5), together with a fallback Defence filed in compliance with the Order dated 15 July 2025.

Yours faithfully,

Marcos Benito Baruja

Now include the following letter and the defence that follows:

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CROYDON

Claim No: H3GM8008

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant

- and -

Marcos Benito Baruja

Defendant

---

CLARIFICATION IN RESPONSE TO ORDER DATED 15 JULY 2025

To: District Judge Rowland 
County Court at Croydon 
Altyre Road 
Croydon 
CR9 5AB 

Dear District Judge Rowland,

I write in response to the Order dated 15 July 2025, made of the court’s own initiative under CPR 3.3, which states:

“Upon the Defence appearing to be an application and not, in fact, a Defence...”

The Defendant respectfully clarifies that the document filed on 26 July 2025 was a fully pleaded Defence, compliant with CPR 15 and CPR 16.5. It addressed both jurisdictional and substantive defects in the claim, including:

- The failure to serve the claim form within 4 months of issue, contrary to CPR 7.5;
- The absence of any application for extension under CPR 7.6(3);
- The resulting lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784;
- The failure of the Particulars of Claim to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and Practice Direction 16, disclosing no cause of action.

The Defence also invited the court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c), and included a draft order to that effect. This was not an application, but a procedural invitation for the court to exercise its powers of its own initiative, as permitted under Practice Direction 3A and the overriding objective.

The phrase in the Order — “Upon the Defence appearing to be an application and not, in fact, a Defence...” — reflects a category error. The Civil Procedure Rules do not require a defence to be passive or deferential. A defence can — and should — assert strike-out grounds, especially where the claim is void or incoherent. This is consistent with the overriding objective and the court’s discretion under CPR 3.4.

The Defendant respectfully submits that no further Defence is required to a claim that is:

- Expired and unserved within the permitted timeframe;
- Incoherent and legally defective;
- Unsupported by any pleaded contractual terms or identified breach.

Accordingly, the Defendant invites the court to reconsider the Order dated 15 July 2025 and to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c).

This clarification is submitted pursuant to CPR 3.3(5) and is copied to the Claimant.

Yours faithfully,
 
Marcos Benito Baruja

---

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Clarification 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: Marcos Benito Baruja


Date: 28 July 2025

The defence:

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CROYDON

Claim No: H3GM8008

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant

- and -

Marcos Benito Baruja

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration GJ60PEO.

2. The Defendant denies liability for the sums claimed or any amount at all.

3. The Defendant asserts that the claim is void, having not been served within the time permitted by CPR 7.5. The claim form was issued on 14 May 2021. In accordance with CPR 7.5(1), the deadline for service was 14 September 2021. No valid service ever took place, and no extension under CPR 7.6 was sought or granted.

4. The County Court has already set aside the default judgment under CPR 13.2, accepting that no valid service occurred. Accordingly, the claim form expired unserved and cannot now be revived. In accordance with Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784, the court has no jurisdiction to try this claim.

5. Separately, and without prejudice to the above, the Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). They disclose no facts capable of founding a cause of action. No contractual terms are pleaded. No breach is identified. No legal basis is set out for the sums claimed.

6. The Defendant is therefore unable to respond to any specific allegations, as none are properly pleaded.

7. This Defence is filed solely to comply with the Court’s order of 15 July 2025. It is not a concession that the claim is valid or that further pleadings would be appropriate. The Defendant will oppose any attempt to amend or re-serve the claim form, which is no longer extant in law.

8. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c), on the basis that it discloses no reasonable grounds and constitutes an abuse of process.

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: Marcos Benito Baruja


Date: 28 July 2025

Do this today or tomorrow.

I'm confident that if this is not struck out, it will be discontinued.

I'm confident that if this is not struck out, it will be discontinued.

They are tireless

Please help

Totally as expected. Although it seems like going round in circles, doesn’t it?
Usual advice:

Having received your own 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 legal@ce-service.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.