Successful Legal Challenge Secures £1,200 Costs Award Against Civil Enforcement Limited
In a decisive ruling at Lincoln County Court, District Judge Armitage ordered Civil Enforcement Limited to pay £1,200 in costs following a successful strike-out application under CPR 3.4(2)(a). This outcome underscores the critical importance of robust legal representation in challenging improperly formulated claims, particularly those involving private parking charges.
Case Overview
Our client, Miss O’Brien, sought legal assistance after being pursued for three unpaid parking charges. Upon thorough review of her case, our team identified significant deficiencies in the Claimant’s particulars of claim. We advised Miss O’Brien to instruct our new solicitor partner Solicitor’s to file a strike-out application, citing non-compliance with CPR 16.4, CPR 16.4(1)(e), and Practice Direction 16.7. The application argued that the Claimant’s statement failed to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, rendering it legally unsustainable.
Key Deficiencies in the Claim
No Binding Contractual Obligation: The Claimant failed to establish that Miss O’Brien was subject to the purported parking terms. As a member of the gym, she was entitled to complimentary parking, a right further supported by the landowner’s agreement permitting parking for permit holders.
Unparticularized Alleged Terms: The Claimant did not adequately specify the contractual terms, offer, or consideration—essential elements for a valid claim.
Discrepancies in Documentation: The dates of alleged Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) listed in the claim contradicted those on the corresponding Notices to Keeper, undermining the Claimant’s credibility.
Court Proceedings and Outcome
At the final hearing, Advocate Mr. Jackson Yamba robustly represented Miss O’Brien. Prior to proceedings, Mr. Yamba alerted the Claimant to these material discrepancies and urged discontinuation of the claim. During the hearing, he invoked persuasive authority from Akande to reinforce the Defendant’s position, successfully arguing that procedural oversights by the Claimant warranted striking out the claim.
When addressing costs, the Claimant contended that the small claims track should limit liability. Mr. Yamba countered that no such allocation had been made and emphasised the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct in persisting with a flawed case despite clear warnings. The Court agreed, ordering Civil Enforcement Limited to pay £1,200 in costs a clear admonition against pursuing unsubstantiated claims.
Implications for Motorists
This ruling highlights the necessity for motorists to seek expert legal guidance when contesting parking charges. Technical non-compliance by claimants can invalidate claims, and diligent advocacy can secure favourable outcomes while recovering costs.
Why Choose Our Services?
Our team specialises in identifying procedural weaknesses and mounting targeted challenges to protect motorists from unjust claims. Whether contesting flawed particulars, contractual ambiguities, or administrative errors, we provide strategic representation to uphold your rights.
For expert assistance in navigating parking charge disputes, contact us today. Let our expertise shield you from unmerited claims and secure the resolutions you deserve.