Help needed with Civil Enforcement Ltd CCJ claim

[b789]

Welcome to the forum @Arbitration. Do you have a copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) you received. Reminders and any debt recovery letters are not required and can be safely ignored.

With an issue date of 06 May you have until Tuesday, 26 May 2026 to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm Monday, 08 June 2026 to submit your defence.

You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zi...e.pdf?dl=0

The key point with this claim is that CEL’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) are not merely brief; they are legally deficient.

They do not properly identify the alleged contractual agreement, the relevant term allegedly breached, or even the actual nature of the alleged breach. The wording is generic and formulaic: “breach of contract/restrictions/TCs” tells you almost nothing. It does not say whether the allegation is an overstay, no payment, underpayment, incorrect registration entry, failure to display, parking outside terms, or something else.

That matters because this is pleaded as a contract claim. The Particulars of Claim are generic and inadequately pleaded, contrary to CPR 16.4 and PD 16. Where a claim is based upon an agreement, PD 16 requires proper particulars of that agreement. In Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Mrs Justice Jefford DBE held that it is implicit that the Particulars of Claim must set out whether the agreement relied upon is oral, written, by conduct, or some combination. CEL has failed to do so.

That is a binding High Court authority and is directly relevant here. CEL cannot simply issue a vague bulk claim, say “terms applied”, and expect the Defendant to guess what case has to be answered. The court should not have to allocate court time and resources to a claim that does not properly disclose a cause of action.

The defence will therefore be spun around that defect as the lead point. The court will be invited to strike out the claim at allocation stage under CPR 3.4 because the Particulars of Claim disclose no properly pleaded cause of action. In the alternative, if the court is not minded to strike it out immediately, CEL should at least be put to strict proof and required to explain precisely what contract is relied upon, how it was formed, what term was breached, and how the Defendant is said to be liable as keeper when the driver has not been identified and PoFA keeper liability appears to be unavailable.

I now generally advise submitting a short defence through MCOL. Whilst MCOL is limited in that it does not allow formatting or the attachment of transcripts and other documents, it has the important advantage of being submitted instantly and entered into the court system immediately. Given the continuing administrative failures at the CNBC, that is now the safer course. Any authorities, transcripts or other documents can be filed later with the Witness Statement if the claim progresses that far.

You will need to copy and paste the following defence into the MCOL defence text box. It has been checked to ensure that it fits within the 122-line limit.

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant denies that any sum is owed to the Claimant.

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the material time. The Claimant has not identified the driver and is put to strict proof of the basis upon which the Defendant is said to be liable.

3. The Particulars of Claim are generic, incoherent and inadequately pleaded. They fail to identify the precise contractual term allegedly breached, the nature of the alleged breach, or the factual basis upon which liability is asserted.

4. The Particulars merely state that the claim relates to a parking charge for breach of contract terms and conditions and/or restrictions. That wording does not disclose whether the allegation is an overstay, non-payment, underpayment, incorrect registration entry, failure to display, unauthorised parking, or any other specific breach.

5. The Defendant cannot reasonably plead a full defence to a case which has not been properly pleaded. The Claimant has not identified the agreement relied upon, the manner in which it was allegedly formed, the specific term allegedly breached, or the conduct said to amount to that breach.

6. The Particulars of Claim are therefore contrary to CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16. Where a claim is based upon an agreement, PD 16 requires proper particulars of that agreement.

7. In Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Mrs Justice Jefford DBE held that it is implicit that Particulars of Claim must set out whether the agreement relied upon is oral, written, by conduct, or some combination. The Claimant has failed to do so.

8. The Claimant’s failure is not a mere technicality. It goes to the core of the alleged cause of action. The Claimant is an experienced private parking operator and a serial issuer of county court claims. It knows, or ought to know, the basic pleading requirements applicable to a contract claim.

9. The Claimant could have served detailed Particulars of Claim at the outset but chose not to do so. It should not now be given a second opportunity to repair a fundamentally deficient claim after proceedings have been issued and after the Defendant has been required to respond to a case that has not been properly pleaded.

10. Having regard to the overriding objective under CPR 1.1, the generic and deficient pleading, the modest sum claimed, and the routine bulk nature of these proceedings, the Defendant submits that it would be disproportionate and contrary to the efficient use of court resources to direct further pleadings or allow the Claimant to remedy defects which should never have existed.

11. The court is therefore invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a), as the Particulars of Claim disclose no properly pleaded cause of action. The Defendant specifically submits that this is not an appropriate case for further and better particulars. The appropriate remedy is strike out.

12. The Particulars also appear internally defective. They state “Time in: 15:38” and “Time out: 11:07”, which is impossible as pleaded in the absence of any coherent explanation. That defect further demonstrates that the claim has been issued without proper care or scrutiny.

13. The Claimant has not pleaded any actual period of parking. ANPR entry and exit timestamps, even if accurate, are not the same as a period of parking. They record, at most, vehicle movement past cameras, not when any alleged parking period began or ended.

14. The alleged parking event is said to have occurred on 1 June 2024. The Parking Charge Notice was not issued until 27 November 2025. On the information presently available, that is far outside the time limit required for keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

15. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that it fully complied with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 if it seeks to recover the charge from the Defendant as registered keeper.

16. In particular, the Claimant is put to strict proof that a compliant Notice to Keeper was delivered within the statutory period and that the notice contained all mandatory wording required by Schedule 4.

17. If the Claimant cannot establish full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Defendant cannot be held liable as registered keeper.

18. The Defendant further denies that the Claimant has standing to sue. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority from the landowner or lawful occupier to operate at the relevant site, issue parking charges, and pursue court proceedings in its own name.

19. The Defendant denies that any contract was formed. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage in place at the material time, including entrance signage, internal signage, the wording relied upon, the prominence of any parking charge, and whether the alleged terms were capable of being read and accepted before any alleged contract was formed.

20. The Defendant further denies that the sum claimed is recoverable. The claimed parking charge has been inflated to £170, with additional interest and costs then added. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual and legal basis for each sum claimed.

21. The additional £70 is denied. It appears to be an attempt at double recovery and is not recoverable unless the Claimant can show a proper contractual entitlement and actual legal basis for that sum.

22. The Defendant also denies that the Claimant is entitled to interest as claimed. The Claimant has failed to plead a proper basis for interest, including how it has been calculated and from what valid date it is said to run.

23. The Defendant reserves the right to expand upon this defence if the Claimant is permitted to rely upon a case materially different from that set out in the present Particulars of Claim.

24. For the reasons stated above, the claim should be struck out. In the alternative, the claim is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof of every element of its claim.

Let me know when you have submitted the defence and confirm that it shows as having been received in your MCOL history.