EURO CAR PARK LIMITED FINE

LDast

Again, no idea why it isn't obvious that a "Preliminary Matter" isn't the preliminary point in the defence.

Leave para #1 as is.

Insert subheading "Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out".

Paras #2 and #3 are the those from the hharry100 link as shown here:

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

Then add the 4 images of the CEL v Chan transcript.

Next you can add another preliminary matter as para #4  for the allocating judge to consider as follows:

4. Additionally, the Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

Next will be another subheading titled "The facts as known to the Defendant"

Next is the para #2 from the Template Defence but now becomes para #5 in your defence. You only need to edit the bit about whether the Defendant was the keeper, the driver, both or neither.

Next is your para #6 (#3 in the template) which is where you are answering the allegation in the PoC. You are only answering those allegations and, as we already know, they are inadequate so all you can do is state any known facts in those PoC.

Finally, the rest of the template defence follows and we don't need to see that as nothing is changed in there except that all subsequent paragraphs may need to be renumbered sequentially.

Coupon-mad

Which is exactly as shown in the link. 

LDast

Coupon-mad said:

Which is exactly as shown in the link. 

I agree. However, so many posters seem to not be able to get it right. I've created the above text as a template I can just copy and paste in to posts in order to try and correct whatever it is that causes so many to get it wrong. Sigh. 

unamorena1

Coupon-mad said:

That doesn't match the paragraph order in the link I advised you to copy.  And you make no mention here of including the Chan transcript images as seen in the link.

I went to the defence templace post forum whereby you posted the defence template. I scroll down to the 3rd paragrahp but did not see any link? I am probably being blind but I just cannot see it.

I mentioned the chan transcript after paragprah 4 where I put photos of chan. I know I would have to add them later on but should I also add them now so you can view? 

Coupon-mad

Go back to the 3rd paragraph of the defence. You will find the link!

unamorena1

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').

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Additionally, the Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant

 

5.       The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a sparse statement of case. The 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, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver.

 

6.      The defendant attended The Harlow Hotel by Accord between the 25th of March 2022 and the 27th of March 2022 with her partner. The defendant arrived at the hotel and proceeded to do the check in in reception. During the check in, it was not mentioned by the receptionist that the parking had a cost of 6 pounds per night, as the defendant thought the parking was included in the room price. During the 2 nights that the defendant stayed at the hotel it was not mentioned that parking charges were due.

7.      The Defendant, at the time of parking, did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the parked vehicle's location. This absence of prominent signage led to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.

   8. The defendant was unaware of any parking issue until the first letter arrived on the mail dated 25th January 2024. At the time the parking charge noticed was issued 25/03/2022, the defendant  vehicle was not registered at the defendants current address and all the notices and charges were not received. 

unamorena1

Coupon-mad said:

Go back to the 3rd paragraph of the defence. You will find the link!

Thanks, I found it! it was the Harrys link! I have about 10 tabs open and it got confusing. thanks again!

Coupon-mad

Good!

The rest of the template defence (originally para 4 onwards) obviously follows that but is re-numbered to suit. Over 30 paragraphs in the end.

In para 6 remove the word 'of' from both the March dates because when written, it looks like bad grammar!  There's no 'of' in a date.

Change this, which puts the blame on you:

"At the time the parking charge noticed was issued 25/03/2022, the defendant  vehicle was not registered at the defendants current address and all the notices and charges were not received."

to this and number it paras 9 &10:

9.  It will be common ground that, at the time that the parking charge noticed was issued (25/03/2022) the Claimants used an old address. The PCN was never received and there was no opportunity to appeal it. DVLA addresses are notoriously unreliable and not provided as an address for service.  The Claimants failed to check/trace the Defendant's current address until 2024 and then failed to reissue the PCN (as required by their Trade Body) to fairly resolve the matter out of court.

10.  Both a 'soft address trace' and the requirement to reissue a PCN (if not received at the right address) are mandatory rules in the British Parking Association Code of Practice and also in the incoming statutory Code, which the Claimant knows full well was published in February 2022 (a month before the parking event).  They indisputably know the detail of the statutory Code because the Claimant publicly objected to one aspect of it, by writing to Clive Betts (Chair of the DLUHC Select Committee). Notably, the Claimant did not object to the clauses about undertaking a soft trace and reissuing a PCN where it is known that the DVLA address was not the right address for service.  The BPA Code was updated to include this requirement but the Claimants simply ignored it and proceeded to litigation.

. 

unamorena1

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').

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

PHOTOS OF CHAN CASE 

4. Additionally, the Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant

 

5.       The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a sparse statement of case. The 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, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver.

 

6.      The defendant attended The Harlow Hotel by Accord between the 25th March 2022 and the 27th March 2022 with her partner. The defendant arrived at the hotel and proceeded to do the check in in reception. During the check in, it was not mentioned by the receptionist that the parking had a cost of 6 pounds per night, as the defendant thought the parking was included in the room price. During the 2 nights that the defendant stayed at the hotel it was not mentioned that parking charges were due.

7.      The Defendant, at the time of parking, did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the parked vehicle's location. This absence of prominent signage led to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.

8.       The defendant was unaware of any parking issue until the first letter arrived on the mail dated 25th January 2024. 

9.      It will be common ground that, at the time that the parking charge noticed was issued (25/03/2022) the Claimants used an old address. The PCN was never received and there was no opportunity to appeal it. DVLA addresses are notoriously unreliable and not provided as an address for service.  The Claimants failed to check/trace the Defendant's current address until 2024 and then failed to reissue the PCN (as required by their Trade Body) to fairly resolve the matter out of court.

10.     Both a 'soft address trace' and the requirement to reissue a PCN (if not received at the right address) are mandatory rules in the British Parking Association Code of Practice and also in the incoming statutory Code, which the Claimant knows full well was published in February 2022 (a month before the parking event).  They indisputably know the detail of the statutory Code because the Claimant publicly objected to one aspect of it, by writing to Clive Betts (Chair of the DLUHC Select Committee). Notably, the Claimant did not object to the clauses about undertaking a soft trace and reissuing a PCN where it is known that the DVLA address was not the right address for service.  The BPA Code was updated to include this requirement but the Claimants simply ignored it and proceeded to litigation.

Coupon-mad

Yep, with the template defence then following that, with suitably renumbered paragraphs.