Thank you for the advice. I have filed the AoS today.
I have drafted a brief defense. I am unsure how I can add the fact that the reception for the building management told me that they would cancel the claim, as I do not have any documentation to prove this.
I am adding my defence to the template, however, because of the MCOL line limit I am unsure to what extent do I need to state my case, beyond what is already covered by the template.
I am attaching the additional documents for my defence below the draft.
I will try shorten this to try fit this in to the MCOL line limit, but I would appreciate some pointers especially regarding any information that can be safely omitted from my draft without affecting my defence.
Do I need to mention anything regarding the rejected POPLA appeal?
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:
