DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 74779--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enfocement letter Aka: ce-sevice.co.uk
By: concoj Date: June 4, 2025, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=3589.msg74542#msg74542
date=1748959915]
I suggest the following defence be submitted but only after
you've confirmed that the courts order in the set aside only
required the defendant to submit a defence and that there was no
other order on the claimant to submit a new claim or further PoC
to the claim that was set aside today:]
I do not understand the questions. Could you please kindly
formulate those in a different way, thanks
#Post#: 74796--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enfocement letter Aka: ce-sevice.co.uk
By: b789 Date: June 4, 2025, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=concoj link=topic=3589.msg74779#msg74779
date=1749050624]
I do not understand the questions. Could you please kindly
formulate those in a different way, thanks
[/quote]
I am a bit surprised that the DDJ only required you to submit a
defence by 24th June. Normally, they would require the claimant
to either re-issue the claim first and then for you to submit
your defence.
It may be worth waiting for the order to come from the court so
you can show us and then we will know exactly what the DDJ
ordered. It normally takes a week or so to arrive in the post.
You say the DDJ refused the strike out because you only put "Set
aside" on the N244 application form. The DDJ was correct in law:
the court cannot strike out a claim of its own initiative at a
CPR 13.2 hearing if the N244 application itself didn’t expressly
request a strike-out order. Whilst the draft order and WS asked
for it—but unless it’s ticked or stated clearly in box 3 (the
relief sought) on the N244 application, the court will usually
limit its decision to what was formally requested on the face of
that application.
That being said, the defence can still (and does) raise these
strike-out points, and as the defendant, you are perfectly
entitled to ask for the claim to be struck out in the defence.
The CPR does not prevent a defendant from raising CPR 3.4
grounds at the defence stage, especially when:
[indent]• The claim form was never validly served within 4
months (CPR 7.5);
• The PoC are facially defective under CPR 16.4(1)(a);
• The sum is modest and disproportionate to pursue further;
• And the Court has now found service to be invalid under CPR
13.2.[/indent]
As you have been given you a deadline by which you must file a
defence to the claim and as you have not had any further PoC and
unless the judge has ordered the claimant to submit them, it is
too late for them to submit now. So, the defence you submit is
based on the PoC of the original claim, even though technically,
you have never been served them.
In addition to the suggested defence, you should also combine
the following draft order with it. There is nothing for you to
edit in the draft order except your name. The draft order is
included with the defence as an attachment in MS Word format:
[quote][center]IN THE COUNTY COURTAT CROYDON[/center]
[right]Claim No: H3GM808Q[/right]
[center]BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant
[hr]
DRAFT ORDER[/center]
UPON reading the Defence filed by the Defendant
AND UPON the Court being satisfied that:
[indent]1. The claim form was not served within four months of
issue, contrary to CPR 7.5;
2. The Court has no jurisdiction to try the claim, following
Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784;
3. The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a)
and disclose no reasonable cause of action;
4. It would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding
objective to require the Claimant to re-plead and the Defendant
to respond to an incoherent and expired claim;[/indent]
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
[indent]1. The claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and
(c);
2. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of defending the
claim, to be summarily assessed if not agreed.[/indent]
Dated:[/quote]
Here is a link to the draft order in MS Word .docx format:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4uodp2u986vowg0lca0os/Draft-order-H3GM808Q.docx?rlkey=qjqfcxqqllt8y4hhdvgvme20a&st=w5ukyid2&dl=0
#Post#: 77237--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enfocement letter Aka: ce-sevice.co.uk
By: concoj Date: June 19, 2025, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
hi,
Order arrived today
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 77301--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enfocement letter Aka: ce-sevice.co.uk
By: b789 Date: June 20, 2025, 2:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK. Do you have the email address CE used to send you the SAR
response? Please show it to us.
Have CE paid your £300 costs order yet?
I suggest that you do the following TODAY. You post the defence
and draft order, repeated below, FIRST CLASS and you do so at a
Post Office and get a free 'Proof of Posting' certificate. You
address is to Civil Enforcement Ltd, Horton House, Exchange
Flags, Liverpool L2 3PF. DO NOT leave this until tomorrow or
after the weekend. You MUST get a proof of posting certificate
dated today.
You also email the defence and draft order to the court at
enquiries.croydon.countycourt@justice.gov.ukand, if you have
valid email address for CE, CC it to that email address and also
CC yourself.
[quote][center]IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CROYDON[/center]
[right]Claim No: H3GM808Q[/right]
[center]BETWEEN:
Cicil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant
[hr]
DEFENCE[/center]
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle
registration GJ60PEO.
2. The Defendant denies liability to the Claimant for the sums
claimed or any amount at all.
3. The Defendant was unaware of this claim until receiving a
letter dated 13 October 2024 from the Claimant, informing them
of a County Court Judgment entered in default on 15 June 2021.
The Defendant applied to set aside that judgment on the grounds
of defective service.
4. On 3 June 2025, the County Court granted the Defendant’s
application and set aside the judgment under CPR 13.2. This
confirms that no valid service of the claim form ever took
place.
5. The Claimant issued the claim on 14 May 2021. In accordance
with CPR 7.5(1), a claim form must be served on the Defendant
within 4 calendar months of the date of issue — i.e. by 14
September 2021.
6. It is now an accepted fact, as recognised by the Court in
setting aside judgment under CPR 13.2, that the claim form was
never served within that 4-month period. No application to
extend time for service was made within those 4 months.
Therefore, the claim form expired and cannot now be revived.
7. In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784, the Court
of Appeal confirmed that failure to comply with CPR 7.5 by
serving a claim form within the permitted period is fatal to the
claim. The court has no power to retrospectively validate
service or to revive an expired claim form.
8. In light of Vinos, and the fact that no valid service took
place within the prescribed timeframe, the Court has no
jurisdiction to try the claim. The claim is void and must be
struck out accordingly.
9. Further and in the alternative, the Particulars of Claim do
not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which requires a concise
statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies.
10. The Particulars of Claim filed in this case do not identify
a cause of action. They merely refer to a parking charge being
incurred and assert, without evidence or explanation, that the
Defendant breached unspecified terms and conditions.
11. No contractual terms are pleaded. No conduct is identified
as constituting a breach. No explanation is given as to how the
sum of £170 was arrived at, nor is any legal basis offered for
seeking the claimed interest or charges.
12. This style of pleading has already been criticised in other
persuasive appeals cases. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023)
[E7GM9W44]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=ndm4dqsk&dl=0<br
/>and the same claimant as in this case, HHJ Murch held that the
standard CEL wording failed to identify a cause of action and
was therefore an abuse of process. The claim was struck out.
13. The same issues were identified in the persuasive appeals
case of CPMS v Akande (2024) [K0DP5J30]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=366k8qf5&dl=0,<br
/>where the County Court also struck out a claim pleaded in
virtually identical terms for failing to comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a) and failing to disclose any reasonable grounds or
cause of action.
14. The Defendant invites the Court to adopt the same approach
in this case and to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and
(c) on the grounds that (i) the statement of case discloses no
reasonable grounds, and (ii) it is an abuse of process.
15. The Defendant further submits that the Court is entitled to
strike out the claim of its own initiative, on reading the
Particulars of Claim and Defence, on the basis that:
[indent](a) the Particulars do not set out the terms of any
alleged contract;
(b) the Particulars do not identify what the alleged breach was;
(c) the Claimant could have remedied this defect by serving
separate, detailed particulars pursuant to CPR PD7C para 5.2(2),
but chose not to;
(d) the sums claimed are modest, and it would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to
expend court resources on ordering amended particulars and a
further defence.[/indent]
16. The claim concerns a very modest sum, and it would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to
allocate further court resources by ordering the Claimant to
re-plead its case or to require the Defendant to plead a further
defence to an incoherent claim.
17. In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully invites
the Court to strike out the claim in full.
18. If the claim is not struck out, the Defendant reserves the
right to amend and expand this Defence once proper Particulars
of Claim are served.
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:[/quote]
And the draft order, preferably as a Word (.docx) format, but
PDF will be OK:
[quote]
[center]IN THE COUNTY COURTAT CROYDON[/center]
[right]Claim No: H3GM808Q[/right]
[center]BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant
[hr]
DRAFT ORDER[/center]
UPON reading the Defence filed by the Defendant
AND UPON the Court being satisfied that:
[indent]1. The claim form was not served within four months of
issue, contrary to CPR 7.5;
2. The Court has no jurisdiction to try the claim, following
Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784;
3. The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a)
and disclose no reasonable cause of action;
4. It would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding
objective to require the Claimant to re-plead and the Defendant
to respond to an incoherent and expired claim;[/indent]
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
[indent]1. The claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and
(c);
2. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of defending the
claim, to be summarily assessed if not agreed.[/indent]
Dated:[/quote]
#Post#: 77310--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enfocement letter Aka: ce-sevice.co.uk
By: concoj Date: June 20, 2025, 3:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Nope they haven’t paid
I screenshot the email address
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 77347--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enfocement letter Aka: ce-sevice.co.uk
By: b789 Date: June 20, 2025, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
so, you email the defence and draft order to
enquiries.croydon.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and CC
legal@ce-service.co.uk and yourself.
If you have not received the £300 costs as ordered by Friday 4th
July, send the following by email to legal@ce-service.co.uk and
CC yourself:
[quote]Subject: Claim No: H3GM80Q8 – Breach of Costs Order dated
3 June 2025
Dear Civil Enforcement Legal Team,
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd v Marcos Benito Baraja Claim Number:
H3GM80Q8 – County Court at Croydon
I refer to the order made by District Judge Harper on 3 June
2025, which required the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs
in the sum of £300.00 within 14 days of service.
The sealed order was issued on 18 June 2025 and deemed served on
20 June 2025. The deadline for compliance therefore expired on 4
July 2025. No payment has been received.
This is a clear breach of a binding court order. If payment is
not received in full by 7 July 2025, I will proceed without
further notice to issue formal enforcement proceedings under CPR
Parts 70 and/or 71. Please be advised that any such application
will include a claim for the additional costs of enforcement,
for which you may be held liable pursuant to CPR 44.2 and the
overriding objective.
If payment has already been made, please confirm this
immediately. If you require bank details, request them without
delay.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name][/quote]
ONLY send the above if you have NOT received payment by Friday
4th July.
#Post#: 77349--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enfocement letter Aka: ce-sevice.co.uk
By: concoj Date: June 20, 2025, 6:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok understood
Question
Should I send first class still, also?
#Post#: 77358--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enfocement letter Aka: ce-sevice.co.uk
By: b789 Date: June 20, 2025, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You only need to send a copy of the defence and draft order by
post to the court. Everything else is done by email. This is
simply a "belt & braces" exercise for now.
#Post#: 77361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enfocement letter Aka: ce-sevice.co.uk
By: concoj Date: June 20, 2025, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I know, just double checking. Thanks
#Post#: 77457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enfocement letter Aka: ce-sevice.co.uk
By: concoj Date: June 20, 2025, 6:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Everything as you advised, thank you
email arrived asking for my bank details
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page