Paid for a space still got PCN? Do I pay again?

Ab93

Thanks coupon mad! 

Im adjusting as we speak. 

Points 2,3 and 5 adjusted to suit. 

Point 4 withdrawn as related to a VRN work exemption.

Just wanted to double check that points 7 & 7.1can be applied to me? Just want to double check apologies if I am being stupid didn’t want to say something is being breached when it isn’t I don’t know the codes. 

7.  The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.  The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise:

(a) the contractual term(s) relied upon;
(b) the details of any alleged breach of contract (there is just a date range - only two dates stated - and no specifics whatsoever);
(c) how many 'PCNs' are being pursued in this claim, exactly when the alleged conduct occurred (dates and times) and how much each of these charges were;
and
(d) how the purported and unspecified extra 'monies relating to the parking charges' arose and the breakdown of the extortionate quantum of almost two thousand pounds. 

7.1.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

Points 7.2 right up to conclusion copied including pictures. 

Ab93

Also any mention of the purchasing a ticket or save for witness statement? I was following rules set out in ‘the contract’ by purchasing one didn’t know if it was relevant at this point. 

Thanks again! 

UncleThomasCobley

Have you added the following to your defence as para #2? The is a DCB Legal submitted claim and fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. It has to be right at the start of your defence. It supercedes your para #7.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

1. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge 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.

2. 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

Ab93

Thanks unclethomascobley! 

I have included this however it is para 7.2 with pictures to follow as per https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/profile/Rorythoperr defence. 

Remove the points 7 & 7.1 and carry on with just this? 

Thanks 

UncleThomasCobley

Personally, I would put the HHJ Murch appeal judgment citation as para #2 as it is persuasive and you need to judge to be aware of this very recent judgment. You want this thrown out at allocation stage.

Use the wording and include the copy of the transcript.

Ab93

Ok thank you so just to be clear,

erase 7 & 7.1

move 7.2 to 2 which would in turn make the ‘facts known to defendant/background’ etc points 3&4 

do I include the preliminary matter wording so it looks like 

2. Preliminary matter 
The claim should be struck out 
The defendant draws to…


thanks 

Coupon-mad

I agree.

Show us the complete defence here as it might now be so perfect we can use it to help others!

UncleThomasCobley

I'd wait to get a second opinion from some of the other regulars but what I believe should now be para #2 is as follows with all the other paras subsequent to it, renumbered sequentially. The para #7 is superseded by the HHJ Murch judgment.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge 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.

3. 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

Ab93

I doubt anything I have put together will be perfect haha but give me a few mins and I’ll edit without all my details etc and post guys thank you 

Ab93

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXX

Between

XXXXXXX

(Claimant) 

- and -

XXXXXXX

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC')

2. Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2a. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge 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.

2b.  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

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

3. 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. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. 

Background
4. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

5. It is admitted that the Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked at XXXXXXX because this was the Defendant’s home address. 

1. Clearly there is no 'legitimate interest' supporting these enhanced speculative invoices in these circumstances and also no reason for the Claimant to sit on their hands for XXXXXXX hoping to profit even further from exaggerated interest calculations
2. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the fact the defendant was a resident at this time and entitled to parking as per tenancy agreement, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms.

 7.1 Accordingly it is denied that:
(a) there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
(b) the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
(c) the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages or indemnity costs if applicable'

 

8 . 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. See below.

9.  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. See below.

 

 

1. 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 – DCBLegal - confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. See below.

 

1. 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.
2. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

13. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

14. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of:

(i). the alleged breach, which is not pleaded in the POC and requires further and better particulars, and

(ii). a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced sum in the POC, including how interest was calculated, which looks to be improperly applied on the entire inflated sum, as if that was all overdue on the day of the alleged event.

15. The Defendant avers that this claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due, whether in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

16. This case is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds the 'numbers game' of bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases.  MoJ statistics of bulk litigators reveal that there are several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with some 90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds.  No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a proper cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).