Civil Enforcement CCJ set aside. Wording help please.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

I am loving those woeful POC.  And the fact the HHJ Murch judgment was against CEL for the exact same POC.

I am loving this sign just as much!

I'm sure the regulars can spot at 40 paces, the insurmountable legal problem that CEL have here:

By the way it´s Morrisons car park in Camberwell.

Coupon-mad

Not the one I linked to then? Denmark Hill.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

Not the one I linked to then? Denmark Hill.

Although only down the road, it is definitely Camberwell not Denmark hill.

I´ve had a crack at wording the Murch argument. I´m sure it´s full of mistakes but the minute I get out of using a template I´m pretty lost.  Pretty far from my comfort zone trying to write a legal document!

The HHJ Murch Judgement against this Claim

25. His honour Judge Merch ruled (in the matter of Civil enforcement LTD vs Ming Tak Chan) (See exhibit xxx) that the claim form must show how any alleged terms and conditions were breached by the defendant, as this was not the case the judgment was struck out. 

26. The particulars of claim submitted on the claim form by the claimant are as follows and closely resemble those of the HHJ Murch judgement:

CLAIM FOR MONEY RELATING TO A PARKING CHARGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TERMS/CONDITIONS(TCS) FOR PARKING IN PRIVATE CAR PARK (CP) MANAGED BY CLAIMANT. DRIVERS MAY ONLY PARK PURSUANT TO TCS OF USE DISPLAYED IN CP AND AGREED UPONENTRY/PARKING. ANPR CAMERAS OR MANUAL PATROLSMONITOR VEHICLES ENTERING/EXITING THE CP AND TC BREACHES. CHARGES OF GBP182.00 CLAIMED. VIOLATION DATE: xxx PAYMENT DUE DATE: xxx TIME IN: 15:52 TIME OUT: 16:04 PCN: xxx VEHICLE REG MARK: xxx CAR PARK:- BUTTERFLY WALK TOTAL DUE- GBP182.00 (PAY:WWW.CE-SERVICE.CO.UK OR 01158225020) THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE SUM OF GBP234.78 FOR THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGE INC GBP52.78 INTEREST UNDER S.69 OF THE CCA 1984 RATE: 8.00% PA FROM DUE DATE TO- 23/03/22 SAME RATE TO JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT AT DAILY RATE OF- GBP0.04 TOTAL DEBT AND INTEREST DUE- GBP234.78

27. In the HHJ Murch Judgement in paragraph 9 it was ruled that:  “there are a number of ways in which one might breach the terms and conditions. This is not set out in the brief claim form."  and in paragraph 10: "It is incumbent upon the claimant (the respondent before me) to set out how it is that the entitlement to the charge arises. It is correct that this claim form sets out that there was a contract. One can safely infer that it is as a result of the driver bringing the car onto the land that it is being said by conduct a contract arose. It is also clear which vehicle is said to have been used in a manner which breached the contract. It is also clear where and when the breach is said to have occurred. The breach itself however is not set out. The conduct giving rise to the breach is not set out."

28. It is clear that the claimant has not included details of the breach and the claim should be struck out on this basis.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

Nope it's not.  It's another legal issue.

You missed the importance of what I said here:

Also search the forum for:
Fairlie Fenton Civil Enforcement

Ok after a lot of searching through the forum I finally got the concept of this defense but how do I put this in my WS? There´s so many posts to trawl through and much of it is not relevant. Is there a template or anything I can use? I don´t now how to write this stuff myself and I don´t know where to find the relevant case law to quote. I´m starting to run out of time to submit this and I´m going to need a bit more help if anyone can assist please.

Coupon-mad

But it's easy.

Plagiarise a CEL defence or witness statement section citing Fairlie v Fenton, written already that were in your results.  There will be a few (about Harbour Commissioners) that you can adapt.

It won't be the newest result but do search for NEWEST not the truly terrible 'BEST MATCH' default.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

But it's easy.

Plagiarise a CEL defence or witness statement section citing Fairlie v Fenton, written already that were in your results.  There will be a few (about Harbour Commissioners) that you can adapt.

It won't be the newest result but do search for NEWEST not the truly terrible 'BEST MATCH' default.

I´ve been trying but it is taking me hours of trawling through the forums to find anything useful. I´m a creative with ADHD, beleive me nothing about this is easy to me! The newest search filter sounds like it might help though. 

I wrote this myself as I couldn´t find a template about the Murch judgement I´d really appreciate it if you could tell if it´s usable.

The HHJ Murch Judgement against this Claim

25. His honour Judge Merch ruled (in the matter of Civil enforcement LTD vs Ming Tak Chan) (See exhibit xxx) that the claim form must show how any alleged terms and conditions were breached by the defendant, as this was not the case the judgment was struck out. 

26. The particulars of claim submitted on the claim form by the claimant are as follows and closely resemble those of the HHJ Murch judgement:

CLAIM FOR MONEY RELATING TO A PARKING CHARGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TERMS/CONDITIONS(TCS) FOR PARKING IN PRIVATE CAR PARK (CP) MANAGED BY CLAIMANT. DRIVERS MAY ONLY PARK PURSUANT TO TCS OF USE DISPLAYED IN CP AND AGREED UPONENTRY/PARKING. ANPR CAMERAS OR MANUAL PATROLSMONITOR VEHICLES ENTERING/EXITING THE CP AND TC BREACHES. CHARGES OF GBP182.00 CLAIMED. VIOLATION DATE: xxx PAYMENT DUE DATE: xxx TIME IN: 15:52 TIME OUT: 16:04 PCN: xxx VEHICLE REG MARK: xxx CAR PARK:- BUTTERFLY WALK TOTAL DUE- GBP182.00 (PAY:WWW.CE-SERVICE.CO.UK OR 01158225020) THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE SUM OF GBP234.78 FOR THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGE INC GBP52.78 INTEREST UNDER S.69 OF THE CCA 1984 RATE: 8.00% PA FROM DUE DATE TO- 23/03/22 SAME RATE TO JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT AT DAILY RATE OF- GBP0.04 TOTAL DEBT AND INTEREST DUE- GBP234.78

27. In the HHJ Murch Judgement in paragraph 9 it was ruled that:  “there are a number of ways in which one might breach the terms and conditions. This is not set out in the brief claim form."  and in paragraph 10: "It is incumbent upon the claimant (the respondent before me) to set out how it is that the entitlement to the charge arises. It is correct that this claim form sets out that there was a contract. One can safely infer that it is as a result of the driver bringing the car onto the land that it is being said by conduct a contract arose. It is also clear which vehicle is said to have been used in a manner which breached the contract. It is also clear where and when the breach is said to have occurred. The breach itself however is not set out. The conduct giving rise to the breach is not set out."

28. It is clear that the claimant has not included details of the breach and the claim should be struck out on this basis.

Coupon-mad

Why didn't you just copy the one by @xavian1234 for that wording?

All you need to do is search for keywords and change BEST MATCH to NEWEST

1505grandad

"25. His honour Judge Merch =....."

Make sure that you always spell the name of this beloved Judge correctly at all times.

KeithP

...and in para 27 judgment is misspelt.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

Why didn't you just copy the one by @xavian1234 for that wording?

All you need to do is search for keywords and change BEST MATCH to NEWEST

I think I´ve found it but I removed quite a lot to make it fit my WS. Again kind of stabbing in the dark here would really apreciate if someone could check it over. Should I swap the word defence for WS in the first paragraph? Thanks.

The HHJ Murch Judgement against this Claim

The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond.

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 the Practice direction to 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 Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the POC. Exhibit xxx

 Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing.  Exhibit xxx

 Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. Exhibit xxx

Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. Exhibit xxx

The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.