Hi All, I have received a CCJ from CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED after parking in a Worcester Leisure centre car park in early February 2016. I was a member at the establishment at the time (I have contacted them, merely stated they didn’t manage the car park), the car park uses ANPR cameras to record all incoming and outgoing vehicles, no barriers. I make no comment on the driver of the vehicle on said date. I received the NTK, followed by follow up letters, followed by a solicitor letter. I have since destroyed all of which. The claim is for approximately £325 Amount Claimed: £250 (Rounded up) Court Fee: £25 Legal representative’s costs: £50 Total: £325 QUOTE from Claim for - “Particulars of Claim: Outstanding debt and damages DATE—DESCRIPTION—AMOUNT—DUE DATE **/02/16 Ref ********** 236.00 **/02/16 Total Due- 236.00 (Ref: www .ce-service.co.uk or Tel:01158225020 The claimant claims the sum of £250 for Outstanding debt and damages including 12.83 interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to- 13/10/16 Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment Daily rate to Judgment- 0.05 Total debt and interest due- 250.00 I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.” I have looked over a few threads on the forum and drafted an initial defence as seen below. Any and all help/advice greatly welcomed and appreciated. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim on the following grounds:- 1. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper has not been proven as the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements. 2. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED. 3. CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED are not the lawful occupier of the land. (i) absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim. 4. The terms and conditions displayed on the signs at the entrance to the the site in question were unclear and not prominent on site/around the areas in question, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 14 days 5. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound. 6. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver. 7. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons: a) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable. 8. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and CIVIL ENFROCEMENT LIMITED have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss. 9. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. I have ACKNOWLEDGED the claim online and have until 14th November to provide a defense. Let me know if there is any further details or information I can provide to strengthen my case. Many thanks!