PCM Claim Form time to write a defence

Johnson2015

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxx

Between

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

(Claimant) 

- and -

XX XXXX 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').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. 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 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 was not the driver at the time.

3. The vehicle registration XXXXXXXX was parked at XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The vehicle was parked up while visiting family members at XXXXXXXXX. Unfortunately, the Defendant did not receive any letters regarding this claim prior to the Claim Letter, as previous address was being used by Claimant.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

4. 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.

5. 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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

6. 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.

P.s Everything has been directly C&P'd from @hharry100 . As mentioned changed the wording about not recieving letters. Made it more clear about the letters being sent to an old address.

Coupon-mad

The preliminary matter comes first.  Also, where are the Chan transcript images?

Can you help us understand what we can make clearer about the link to hharry100's defence and why so many posters are not simply copying his paragraph order?

Johnson2015

OK, so para 1, 2, 4 , 5 goes 1st then my 3rd para . I will revist post by hharry100. Didn't realise you needed to attach Chan Transcript. Will revist this evening. 

Johnson2015

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxx

Between

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

(Claimant) 

- and -

XX XXXX 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').

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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

**4 pages of Chan transcript**

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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 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 was not the driver at the time.

5. The vehicle registration XXXXXXXX was parked at XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The vehicle was parked up while visiting family members at XXXXXXXXX. Unfortunately, the Defendant did not receive any letters regarding this claim prior to the Claim Letter, as previous address was being used by Claimant.

6. 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.

7. 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.

Etc etc etc....

Johnson2015

Coupon-mad said:

The preliminary matter comes first.  Also, where are the Chan transcript images?

Can you help us understand what we can make clearer about the link to hharry100's defence and why so many posters are not simply copying his paragraph order?

FYI when you click on hharry100 hyperlink it goes to his profile page, as opposed to the actual defence itself. Difficult to navigate if you're a newbie.

Also, I suppose the reason possibly as to why people are not copying his paragraph numbering accurately is because there are a number of draft versions of his defence posted on hharry100 thread, maybe highlighting the correct one e.g date, time stamp , etc might avoid the confusion as to which is the preferred numbering sequence.

Coupon-mad

But the Template Defence gives you the actual link.  Not just the username, the link itself.

You could add some phrases from this one 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80611061/#Comment_80611061

Johnson2015

Amended and sent. This was a response from Gladstone's .

Please note, I am no longer with the firm and your email has been automatically routed to our enquiries inbox.

New one on me....

Also received this in a separate email.

Thank you for your email, this has been received and will be forwarded to the relevant department for review.

 

If your email relates to non-debt recovery litigation

 

Please note that a member of the relevant team will review your enquiry and provide a response to you, as soon as possible.

 

If your email relates to debt recovery litigation

 

Please note it can take up to 24 hours for your email to be placed on file. We respectfully ask you do not telephone us within this time to discuss your email as your email may not be on file and our team will therefore be unable to assist you further.

 

We also respectfully request you do not send further copies of your email, as this only serves to delay/ extend our response times.

 

Please treat this as our acknowledgment of receipt of your email, a substantive response will be provided in due course.

 

Timescales for responses

 

Please be aware we process all emails in order of the date they are received. Response times can vary depending on the volume of the incoming correspondence we receive at any given time.

 

If you have a hearing within the next 14 days, we class this correspondence as urgent and aim to respond within 24-48 hours. In the event you have not received a response after 48 hours, please do not hesitate to contact our office either via telephone on 01565 755 088 or via email to enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk.

 

If your matter is not listed for a hearing within 14 days, we class this correspondence as non-urgent, although it is still important to us and we aim to reply as soon as we are able.

 

If a Claim has not been issued against you, please be aware that your correspondence will be treated in line with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and we have up to 30 days to respond to your correspondence. Please note we do try to respond in advance of this deadline, however, if we have to request further information for example from our client to enable us to respond to your correspondence, a response may not be received until the end of the 30 day period. We would respectfully ask you do not contact our office or send further correspondence chasing a reply until the expiration of the 30 day period.

Do I trust it??? Or resend to their enquiries email (enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk)

 

Johnson2015

Still no response from CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk email.... Sent from Gmail and Hotmail accounts. Had this issue last time.

Coupon-mad

Johnson2015 said:

Still no response from CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk email.... Sent from Gmail and Hotmail accounts. Had this issue last time.

You weren't meant to send it to Gladstones.  But not getting an auto-acknowledgement back from the CNBC means the defence is NOT in.

Have you got time to print & post a copy before the deadline?  Obviously with proof of posting.

Johnson2015

I can do it today but today is my deadline