DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 92437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd. PCN - Payment not made / permit not
obtained - 1 Devon Street, L38HA
DIR By: KingJulien
Date: October 1, 2025, 3:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you b789!
You're a legend :)
I have sent this response to them by post and email.
I will wait to hear back from them and come back with an update.
#Post#: 93284--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd. PCN - Payment not made / permit not
obtained - 1 Devon Street, L38HA
DIR By: KingJulien
Date: October 7, 2025, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I went back to the Landowner, and as they had initially took the
PCN details down and told me that they would get it cancelled.
Today they told me that the assistant had forgotten to do so,
and since its 28 days after the PCN issue date they cannot do
anything now.
I don't know if this is a real thing.
#Post#: 93285--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd. PCN - Payment not made / permit not
obtained - 1 Devon Street, L38HA
DIR By: jfollows
Date: October 7, 2025, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If the land owner hired CEL in the first place, they can get
this cancelled. Saying otherwise is simply not true.
#Post#: 93286--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd. PCN - Payment not made / permit not
obtained - 1 Devon Street, L38HA
DIR By: KingJulien
Date: October 7, 2025, 1:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought so as much. I think at this point it might be a dead
end to convince the landowners to cancel this, as they were
unwilling to even try. The shops in the building will definitely
lose my business for good irrespective of the outcome.
I will wait to hear back from CEL to see if they take this
forward.
#Post#: 123135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd. PCN - Payment not made / permit not
obtained - 1 Devon Street, L38HA
DIR By: KingJulien
Date: June 27, 2026, 12:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I received a N1SDT claim form from CE today. They never
responded to the reply I sent to their LoC. They sent me an
identical one last month, and I sent them another identical
response as last time.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/hRQ4yqQT/img20260627-17573220-Copy.jpg
I am unsure how to respond to this. Do I need to login to MCOL
and submit a AoS straight away?
I would appreciate any guidance in responding to this Claim.
Thanks!
#Post#: 123139--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd. PCN - Payment not made / permit not
obtained - 1 Devon Street, L38HA
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 27, 2026, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Think about your defence here.
Do not use a boilerplate/template defence. These are
increasingly being struck out. Stick to the facts and respond to
the Particulars of Claim. Primary should be that the land owner
told you this would be cancelled. File a defence or
Acknowledgement of Service by 13 July. If you file AoS, file a
defence by 27 July. Feel free to post here for comments/input
prior to the deadline.
Your defence can include the fact that the Particulars of Claim
are rubbish, but shouldn’t only be this point.
#Post#: 123145--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd. PCN - Payment not made / permit not
obtained - 1 Devon Street, L38HA
DIR By: KingJulien
Date: June 27, 2026, 4:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
Do I need to change the language further to not identify the
driver at this stage?
--- Quote ---
> 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:
>
--- End Quote ---
[img width=947.5999755859375
height=1466]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/nq8VPRt9/qqcbl6radaux.webp[/img]
[img width=947.5999755859375
height=1466]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/8gGLZYQZ/01ay9r19yyq6.webp[/img]
[img width=947.5999755859375
height=1466]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/DHtHvscW/xkhj9nzm6g1a.webp[/img]
[img width=947.5999755859375
height=726]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/yBkB8ZsL/Screenshot-2026-06-27-205434.png[/img]
[img width=947.5999755859375
height=766]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/LXMRd6rN/Screenshot-2026-06-27-205414.png[/img]
[img width=922
height=2000]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/dwF5rJ9y/cc1tsx2gvhmn.avif[/img]
#Post#: 123166--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd. PCN - Payment not made / permit not
obtained - 1 Devon Street, L38HA
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 28, 2026, 1:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That defence is overly complicated and appears to be of the
'boiler-plate' type which you were advised to avoid.
The first thing I notice from the Claim form is that they are
only pursuing you as the vehicle driver - no mention of
alternative pursuit under PoFA Schedule 4.
Could you please post up the original PCN?
#Post#: 123167--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd. PCN - Payment not made / permit not
obtained - 1 Devon Street, L38HA
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 28, 2026, 2:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You don’t need “documentation to prove this”, this is your
defence which - if it ever came to it - you would repeat under
oath in court.
Which is all the more reason why your defence needs to be
something you can stand by, something you understand, and
something which directly addresses and counters the claim made
against you. It does not need to be long or to be complicated.
#Post#: 123176--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd. PCN - Payment not made / permit not
obtained - 1 Devon Street, L38HA
DIR By: KingJulien
Date: June 28, 2026, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry the attachments seems to have been displayed incorrectly
after I edited the post.
Even during POPLA appeal they insisted that I was the driver,
even though I did not identify the driver.
Thank you for the input, I will try remove the boiler plate
defence and post another draft including the part where the
landowner agreed to cancel this initially.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/nq8VPRt9/qqcbl6radaux.webp
HTML https://i.ibb.co/8gGLZYQZ/01ay9r19yyq6.webp
HTML https://i.ibb.co/DHtHvscW/xkhj9nzm6g1a.webp
HTML https://i.ibb.co/yBkB8ZsL/Screenshot-2026-06-27-205434.png
HTML https://i.ibb.co/LXMRd6rN/Screenshot-2026-06-27-205414.png
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page