*STRUCK OUT* County Court Claim Form: Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd/BW Legal

ANorthernSoul

Issue Date: 21/11/2019

Particulars of Claim

The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £200.00 being monies due from the Claimant in respect of multiple Parking Charge Notices (PCN's) issued between 30/10/2018 and 14/11/2018, full details which have been delivered to the Defendant.
The terms of the PCN's allowed the Defendant 28 days from the issue date of the PCN to pay the PCN sum, which the Defendant failed to do.
Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The claim also includes statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 2984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily from 30/10/2018 to 20/11/2019 being an amount £15.18.
The Claimant also claims £100.00 contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms and Conditions.

Background to charge(s).
I received multiple PCN's whilst parking at my place of work. My employer rents parking spots from the building, one of which was allocated to me. During the date of claim(s), many other employees were also getting PCN's, and there seemed to be a new influx of workers in the building.
Some days I and my colleagues were forced to park in spots that weren't allocated to our employer due to parking spots being taken by other workers. I told the reception what had been happening, and all they did was send around a blanket email to all the companies, asking to park in allocated spots.

There are no signs going into the car park entrance, and I was allowed through the barrier with a fob I had been provided to go with my allocated spot.

I brought it up with my employer, but it was apparently ignored.

I have emailed BW legal regarding the SAR, and I have received a letter of acknowledgment.

The acknowledgment of service was received on 26/11/19.

KeithP

ANorthernSoul wrote: »

Issue Date: 21/11/2019

The acknowledgment of service was received on 26/11/19.

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 24th December 2019 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not, chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are trying to keep you under pressure. Just file it.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

You should be sending a SAR to the parking company's Data Protection Officer, not to BWL.

ANorthernSoul

Another last-minute defence. However, I have had the pleasure of reading through past/WIP defences in the meantime.

Since this includes a key fob entry, I was unsure whether or not it made a difference to unclear signage defence. It also includes the Abuse of Process defence.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CPMS) LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX XXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX XXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated at Bruntwood Atria, Bolton, and had a valid permit to be parked there. At no point was the registration number of the vehicle given, or requested by Atria, Bolton, therefore no allocation can be confirmed. There is no visible signage at or prior to entering the parking area, which is secured by key fob. The signage within the parking area is unclear and not easily within the view of the driver whilst driving.

3. In this respect and in all other facts - including the lack of prominence and clarity of the signage and the small font used to hide the onerous terms, the Supreme Court case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is fully distinguished.

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

The purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the CPRs, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'.
6. Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is/was on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third-party debt collector during the process.

7. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £100 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £200 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

7.1. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £100 damages/costs' are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.

The Beavis case is against this Claim
15. This charge is unconscionable and devoid of any 'legitimate interest', given the facts. To quote from the decision in the Beavis case at Para [108]: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''. And at [199]: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.''

15.1. The Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, where it was stated three times that the £85 had to cover the costs of the letters.

15.2. In the Beavis case it was said at para [205]: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

15.3. At para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

15.4. At para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye's accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.'' and at para 198: ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''

The POFA 2012 and the ATA Code of Practice are against this Claim
16. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') at paras 4(5) and 4(6) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' ('NTK'). Further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is no more than £100, and in this case the parking charge in the small print on the signs, and in each NTK, was stated to be £80 and this must have been set to include the costs of recovering the charge, or it falls foul of the Beavis case.

The CRA 2015 is against this claim
17. Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 75% to the parking charge, in a double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is astounding to this Defendant, that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years. Even if most courts are routinely disallowing the added £60 'costs' of all parking charge cases now (and it is clear from online reports that almost all courts are disallowing that sum) this is not enough.

17.1. It is especially unacceptable that parking firms are still filing claims including what they know is a tainted and unrecoverable sum, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source, including in the Caernarfon Court in Case number F2QZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

17.2. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another - less than two weeks later - the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. Cases summarily struck out in that circuit, included BPA members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and the Orders from that court were identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing during a prolonged period in 2019, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in the Beavis case. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

17.3. BW Legal made an application objecting to two 'test' cases that had been struck out by District Judge Taylor against a parking firm for trying to claim for £160 instead of £100 parking charge. This has been repeated conduct in recent years, on the back of the Beavis case, where parking firms have almost unanimously contrived to add £60, or more, on top of the 'parking charge'. Members of both ATAs who have influence on their self-serving 'Trade Bodies' have even voted to have this imaginary 'damages/debt collection' sum added to their respective two Codes of Practice, to create a veil of legitimacy, no doubt to allow their members to confuse consumers and to enable them to continue to 'get away with it' in several court areas which are still allowing this double recovery.

17.4. That N244 application to try to protect the cartel-like position of some of the 'bigger player' parking firms, was placed before the area Circuit Judge and a hearing was held on 11th November 2019, with other parking charge cases in that circuit remaining struck out or stayed, pending the outcome. The Defendants successfully argued on points including a citation of the CRA 2015 and the duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice (a statutory duty that falls upon the courts, whether a consumer raises the issue or not). All three points below were robustly upheld by District Judge Grand, sitting at the Southampton Court, who agreed that:
(a) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6).
(b) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
(c) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the additional 'recovery' sum was in small print, hidden, or in the cases before him, not there at all, is void for uncertainty and in breach of the CRA, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

17.5. At the hearing, the Judge refused their request to appeal. A transcript will be publicly available shortly. In his summing up, it was noted that District Judge Grand stated: ''When I come to consider whether the striking out of the whole claim is appropriate, that the inclusion of the £60 charge means that the whole claim is tainted by it, the claimant should well know that it is not entitled to the £60. The very fact that they bring a claim in these circumstances seems to me that it is an abuse of process of the court, and in saying that, I observe that with any claim that can be brought before the court that if a party doesn't put in a defence to the claim, default judgments are entered. So, the Claimant, in bringing the claims is, in other cases, aware that if the defendant doesn’t submit a defence, the Claimant is going to get a judgment of a knowingly inflated amount. So I conclude by saying that I dismiss the application to set aside Judge Taylor’s ruling.''

17.6. Consumer notices - such as car park signs - are not excused by the CRA 'core exemption'. The CMA Official Government Guidance to the CRA says: ''2.43 In addition, terms defining the main subject matter and setting the price can only benefit from the main exemption from the fairness test ('the core exemption') if they are transparent (and prominent) – see part 3 of the guidance.'' and at 3.2 ''The Act includes an exemption from the fairness test in Part 2 for terms that deal with the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price, provided they are transparent and prominent. (This exemption does not extend to consumer notices but businesses are unlikely to wish to use wording that has no legal force to determine 'core' contractual issues).'' The parking industry is the exception to this rule because they have no consumer 'customers' yet are consumer-facing. Their intention is very clearly in many cases (including this case) for a consumer not to see the onerous terms hidden in their notices and it is averred that no regard is paid to consumer law.

17.7. The definition of a consumer notice is given at 1.19 and the test of fairness is expanded at 1.20: ''A consumer notice is defined broadly in the Act as a notice that relates to rights or obligations between a trader and a consumer, or a notice which appears to exclude or restrict a trader’s liability to a consumer. It includes an announcement or other communication, whether or not in writing, as long as it is reasonable to assume that it is intended to be seen or heard by a consumer. Consumer notices are often used, for instance, in public places such as shops or car parks as well as online and in documentation that is otherwise contractual in nature. [...] Consumer notices are, therefore, subject to control for fairness under the Act even where it could be argued that they do not form part of the contract as a matter of law. Part 2 of the Act covers consumer notices as well as terms, ensuring that, in a broad sense any wording directed by traders to consumers which has an effect comparable to that of a potentially unfair contract term is open to challenge in the same way as such a term. There is no need for technical legal arguments about whether a contract exists and whether, if it does, the wording under consideration forms part of it.''

18. In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court had clearly heard about the decisions affecting the IOW, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit because he summarily struck out another parking ticket claim. The Judge mentioned the POFA 2012 and the Beavis case, and determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' Further, in issuing his Order without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the CRA 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.

19. The Defendant requests that this Court - using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. - recognises its duty to consider the CRA 2015 in the same way as the Southampton and Warwick courts recently have done, and opts to summarily strike out this claim due to the Claimant's flagrant disregard for consumer rights as set out in statute.

20. The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

21. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading, harassing and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made.

22. If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

XXXX XXXXX

Le_Kirk

sufficient interest in the land

It's normally: -

sufficient proprietary interest in the land

ANorthernSoul

Update: A Notice to Proceed from BW Legal today, asking to settle before the 19th Jan.

Redx

disregard , its a typical response


wait for the DQ from the CCBC

beamerguy

ANorthernSoul wrote: »

Update: A Notice to Proceed from BW Legal today, asking to settle before the 19th Jan.

That's OK, "notice to proceed" ... just to scare you.

Think about it, why would they want to settle if they are really certain they would win.

They don't want to get costs awarded against them when they lose.

And because the courts know about the abuse of process scam they keep abusing the courts with, BWL ....... they will never know which court is going to spank them next

Let them know where you stand, especially about their abuse of process and suggest a "drop hands offer" meaning they discontinue, pay their own costs and you will not persue costs against them

ANorthernSoul

General Form of Judgment or Order

In the County Court at Manchester

Claim Number: XXXXXX

Date: 2 March 2021

CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CPMS) LTD | 1st Claimant (Ref TI174480)

XX XXXX XXXXXX |  1st Defendant (Ref)

Warning: you must comply with the terms imposed upon you by this order: otherwise your case is liable to be struck out or some other sanction imposed. If you cannot comply you are expected to make formal application to the court before any deadline imposed upon you expires.

Before District Judge lyer sitting at the County Court at Manchester. Manchester Civil Justice Centre. 1 Bridge Street West, Manchester. M60 9DJ.

Without a hearing on 22 February 2021

UPON

Considering the Court file and any other relevant documents;

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The claim is struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c),

JUDGMENT

1. The parties have previously consented to this claim being dealt with as a disposal without a hearing under CPR 27.10 and dealt with it on 22 February 2021.

2. I was provided with an electronic hearing bundle by the Claimant, which includes:

(a) the claim form/Particulars of Claim,
(b) Defence,

(c) witness statement of XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX dated 24 March 2020 and exhibit IPI.

3. There was no witness statement by the Defendant.

4.The Particulars of Claim state:

The Claimani's claim is for the sum of £200.00 being monies due from the Defendant in respect of multiple parking charge notices (PCNs) issued between 10/10/2018 and 14/11/2018, full details of which have been delivered to the Defendant. The terms of the PCNs allowed the Defendant 28 days from the issue date of the PCN to pay the full sum. which the Defendant has failed to do. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The claim also includes statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum a daily from 30/10/2018 to 20/11/2019 being an amount £15.19. The Claimant also claims £100.00 contractual costs pursuant to the PCN terms and conditions.

5. I observe that:

(a) There is no reference to a breach of contract or trespass by the Defendant, much less to what the Defendant's

alleged breaches were.

(b) There is no identification of:

(i) The cause of action (e.g. whether the claim is brought for breach of contract, trespass or some other tort).

PCN is not a cause of action.

(ii) The registration number of the Defendant's vehicle.

(iii) The dates of the parking.

(iv) The location of the parking.

(c) Neither the fact that details of the claim may previously have been supplied to the Defendant nor the claim for contractual costs are relevant, because:

(i) Details of the claim must appear within the Particulars of Claim.
(ii) The need for pre-issue details to be sent in the form of a notice to keeper is a requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (at least in the case of a claim against the keeper).
(iii) The need for pre-issue details is a feature of the pre-action protocol.

(iv) The claim for contractual costs identifies what is claimed but not why it is claimed and certainly does not amount to the identification of a cause of action.

(d) In the circumstances, the Particulars of Claim fail to:
(i) "contain a concise statement of the nature of the claim", contrary to CPR 16.2(1)(a):

(ii) disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim:

6. CPR 3.4(2) provides:

The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim:
(b) that the statement of ease is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings: or

(c) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

7. It is the practice of many district judges (particularly in Manchester) that if they see an inadequately pleaded claim form/Particulars of Claim in a parking charges case, they will struck out the Particulars of Claim and order fresh Particulars of Claim to be filed. The fact that this did not happen in the present case does not validate the defective Particulars of Claim or excuse the Claimant from the consequences of serious breaches of the CPR. Further, the exercise of the power to strike out is not confined to the early stages of the case.

8. The Defence states that:

(a) The Defendant had a valid parking permit.

(b) There was no visible signage at or prior to entering the car park.

(c) The signage within the car park was unclear and not easily within the view of the driver whilst driving

9. XX XXXXXXXXX witness statement refers to:
(a) A car park at Atria, Spa Road, Bolotn BLI 4AG (paragraph 4).

(b) The Claimant's authority to manage the parking at the car park (paragraph 6).
(c) The display of signage (paragraphs 9 and 10).

(d) The grant of a contractual licence to users to park on terms that they park in their own allocated bay only or, if they cannot do so, contact the Claimant (paragraph 11).
(e) The Defendant having accepted the terms of the contract by parking in the car park (paragraphs 12 to 14).

(f) The Defendant being the registered keeper of a vehicle that was parked in someone else's bay on two dates (paragraphs 13 to 14).

10. XX XXXXXXXXX witness statement is supported by a statement of truth which reads: "I believe the facts in this statement are true". I note that XX XXXXXXXXX is a paralegal employed by BW Solicitors, the Claimant's solicitor. Therefore, the statement of truth does not comply with 22PD3.7, which states:

Where a party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth on his behalf. The statement signed by the legal representative will refer to the client's belief, not his own.

11. This is a minor breach of the CPR and one which, on it's own, might reasonably be overlooked by the court.

12. However, the multiple breaches of the CPR and failure to plead a cause of action are serious matters, particularly where the Claimant is represented by a firm of solicitors experienced in conducting litigation of this nature. There is no application to amend the Particulars of Claim and a witness statement cannot remedy defects in the Particulars of Claim. While this is a low-value small claim (a fact which I take into account, as I take into account all the relevant aspects of the overriding objective), the Particulars of Claim are not difficult to draft and require little (if any) skill. In most cases of this type, a standard form of words is used, which refers to location, registration number and breach of contract. That has not been done in this case and the errors within the Particulars of Claim are too many and too serious to overlook.

13. For these reasons. I strike out the claim. under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c).

Dated 22 February 2021

ANorthernSoul

ANorthernSoul said:

General Form of Judgment or Order

In the County Court at Manchester

Claim Number: XXXXXX

Date: 2 March 2021

CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CPMS) LTD | 1st Claimant (Ref TI174480)

XX XXXX XXXXXX |  1st Defendant (Ref)

Warning: you must comply with the terms imposed upon you by this order: otherwise your case is liable to be struck out or some other sanction imposed. If you cannot comply you are expected to make formal application to the court before any deadline imposed upon you expires.

Before District Judge lyer sitting at the County Court at Manchester. Manchester Civil Justice Centre. 1 Bridge Street West, Manchester. M60 9DJ.

Without a hearing on 22 February 2021

UPON

Considering the Court file and any other relevant documents;

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The claim is struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c),

JUDGMENT

1. The parties have previously consented to this claim being dealt with as a disposal without a hearing under CPR 27.10 and dealt with it on 22 February 2021.

2. I was provided with an electronic hearing bundle by the Claimant, which includes:

(a) the claim form/Particulars of Claim,
(b) Defence,

(c) witness statement of XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX dated 24 March 2020 and exhibit IPI.

3. There was no witness statement by the Defendant.

4.The Particulars of Claim state:

The Claimani's claim is for the sum of £200.00 being monies due from the Defendant in respect of multiple parking charge notices (PCNs) issued between 10/10/2018 and 14/11/2018, full details of which have been delivered to the Defendant. The terms of the PCNs allowed the Defendant 28 days from the issue date of the PCN to pay the full sum. which the Defendant has failed to do. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The claim also includes statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum a daily from 30/10/2018 to 20/11/2019 being an amount £15.19. The Claimant also claims £100.00 contractual costs pursuant to the PCN terms and conditions.

5. I observe that:

(a) There is no reference to a breach of contract or trespass by the Defendant, much less to what the Defendant's

alleged breaches were.

(b) There is no identification of:

(i) The cause of action (e.g. whether the claim is brought for breach of contract, trespass or some other tort).

PCN is not a cause of action.

(ii) The registration number of the Defendant's vehicle.

(iii) The dates of the parking.

(iv) The location of the parking.

(c) Neither the fact that details of the claim may previously have been supplied to the Defendant nor the claim for contractual costs are relevant, because:

(i) Details of the claim must appear within the Particulars of Claim.
(ii) The need for pre-issue details to be sent in the form of a notice to keeper is a requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (at least in the case of a claim against the keeper).
(iii) The need for pre-issue details is a feature of the pre-action protocol.

(iv) The claim for contractual costs identifies what is claimed but not why it is claimed and certainly does not amount to the identification of a cause of action.

(d) In the circumstances, the Particulars of Claim fail to:
(i) "contain a concise statement of the nature of the claim", contrary to CPR 16.2(1)(a):

(ii) disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim:

6. CPR 3.4(2) provides:

The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim:
(b) that the statement of ease is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings: or

(c) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

7. It is the practice of many district judges (particularly in Manchester) that if they see an inadequately pleaded claim form/Particulars of Claim in a parking charges case, they will struck out the Particulars of Claim and order fresh Particulars of Claim to be filed. The fact that this did not happen in the present case does not validate the defective Particulars of Claim or excuse the Claimant from the consequences of serious breaches of the CPR. Further, the exercise of the power to strike out is not confined to the early stages of the case.

8. The Defence states that:

(a) The Defendant had a valid parking permit.

(b) There was no visible signage at or prior to entering the car park.

(c) The signage within the car park was unclear and not easily within the view of the driver whilst driving

9. XX XXXXXXXXX witness statement refers to:
(a) A car park at Atria, Spa Road, Bolotn BLI 4AG (paragraph 4).

(b) The Claimant's authority to manage the parking at the car park (paragraph 6).
(c) The display of signage (paragraphs 9 and 10).

(d) The grant of a contractual licence to users to park on terms that they park in their own allocated bay only or, if they cannot do so, contact the Claimant (paragraph 11).
(e) The Defendant having accepted the terms of the contract by parking in the car park (paragraphs 12 to 14).

(f) The Defendant being the registered keeper of a vehicle that was parked in someone else's bay on two dates (paragraphs 13 to 14).

10. XX XXXXXXXXX witness statement is supported by a statement of truth which reads: "I believe the facts in this statement are true". I note that XX XXXXXXXXX is a paralegal employed by BW Solicitors, the Claimant's solicitor. Therefore, the statement of truth does not comply with 22PD3.7, which states:

Where a party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth on his behalf. The statement signed by the legal representative will refer to the client's belief, not his own.

11. This is a minor breach of the CPR and one which, on it's own, might reasonably be overlooked by the court.

12. However, the multiple breaches of the CPR and failure to plead a cause of action are serious matters, particularly where the Claimant is represented by a firm of solicitors experienced in conducting litigation of this nature. There is no application to amend the Particulars of Claim and a witness statement cannot remedy defects in the Particulars of Claim. While this is a low-value small claim (a fact which I take into account, as I take into account all the relevant aspects of the overriding objective), the Particulars of Claim are not difficult to draft and require little (if any) skill. In most cases of this type, a standard form of words is used, which refers to location, registration number and breach of contract. That has not been done in this case and the errors within the Particulars of Claim are too many and too serious to overlook.

13. For these reasons. I strike out the claim. under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c).

Dated 22 February 2021

So the claim went to a hearing based on papers, without attendance, and was delayed numerous times due to COVID-19. 
Eventually, the claim was judged to be struck out. 
Above is a copy of the judgment.

Also, I did issue a witness statement. I sent it via email, which got rejected due to the file size, or page limit. I requested that it could be accepted, as printing and sending the documents wasn't possible/easy during the height of the pandemic. The reply was that they would take care of it for me, which seemingly they didn't. Luckily it didn't affect the outcome.

D_P_Dance

Thay have wasted your time, now waste theirs, read this

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

Castle

Hopefully the regulars will be "bookmarking" DDJ Iyer's very helpful judgment.