Missed "Letter Before Court Action" - Please help!

_blueberry_

Thanks - I have updated that.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/umwm4jzp7csnmfz7hwv92/WS.docx?rlkey=6ege2dskrqyqxg6gnopfdzgi9&dl=0

UncleThomasCobley

Looking at those PoC, you must add the following to your WS and ask that the claim be struck out for failing to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

_blueberry_

Thanks for that.  Any opinion on where in the WS that should go?  Toward the top?
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/umwm4jzp7csnmfz7hwv92/WS.docx?rlkey=6ege2dskrqyqxg6gnopfdzgi9&dl=0

I have inserted these as points 3 and 4.

UncleThomasCobley

_blueberry_ said:

I have inserted these as points 3 and 4.

That works very well. Don't forget to include the transcript of the judgment as an exhibit and reference it, maybe at the end of para #3.

You can copy and paste this link into your browser for a downloadable PDF of it:

www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&dl=0

(I can't post links yet... don't ask  )

1505grandad

"2.In my statement I shall refer to(Exhibits 1-8)...........?

_blueberry_

Both of those have been amended as well as a few other corrections - thank you.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/umwm4jzp7csnmfz7hwv92/WS.docx?rlkey=6ege2dskrqyqxg6gnopfdzgi9&dl=0

A few sections I would like help with please:
- 30 (i) - should I remove this entirely as non-relevant?  there was no entry onto a keypad.  Is there anything to replace this with my specific case (e.g that the keypad was not accessible as it was inside the store, which was closed)?  
- 31 and 32 - should I remove these as I do not have the claimants ws yet?  will I get a chance to update my ws after I send it?
- 35 - given they have applied interest at 8%, should I remove this section?

Le_Kirk

If you are using the recommended witness statement, you should understand that it is an exemplar to copy for format and style only and not content; you should therefore adjust it so that it backs up and supports what you wrote in your defence.  It would be wrong to include mentions of "keypad entry" in your WS if it was not in your defence.

_blueberry_

Thanks @Le_Kirk - understood, most of it seems, to my novice eye to be relevant so I was going to keep most of it - and adjust those areas which were not relevant or I was uncertain.

I really don't know what I am doing so would be great to get any other feedback you have also please!

Will update today and post the latest ws.

_blueberry_

How about replacing 30 i with the below?

(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:

The signage in this case required customers to enter their vehicle registration number at a kiosk inside the store. Unfortunately, this kiosk was inaccessible to me as the store was closed, rendering compliance impossible.  The sign also states that use of the parking facilities are for use while “on the premises only”. It would be impossible to stay on the premises at all times as I would have to leave the premises in order to enter the store and comply with this conflicting statement. 

In addition to the confusing and contradictory signage, I also wish to highlight the presence of a sign in the parking area that mentioned clamping. The use of clamping as a penalty for parking violations was made illegal under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The inclusion of such outdated language on a parking sign raises questions about the relevance and validity of the signage in the parking area.

This sign, which suggested that 'Others will be clamped,' directly contradicts current parking regulations and creates further confusion regarding the penalties associated with parking violations. It is reasonable to assume that the parking operators responsible for the signage failed to update their notices to reflect the changes in the law.

Given this discrepancy and the fact that clamping is no longer a legally permissible penalty, it further underscores the uncertainty surrounding the parking terms at the location in question. I believe this is another critical factor that should be considered by the court when evaluating the legitimacy of this case.

Le_Kirk

If you have mentioned signage in your defence (which you will have done if you used the template) then that is fine; back it up with pictures as evidence. Just be aware that some shops state that car park is only in use during storeopening hours, so part of your argument fails ifthe signs state that!