Residential PCN now a CCJ claim UKPC/DCB

justiceseeker180

* not relevant in its exact details but relevant that it's residential 

justiceseeker180

If I go by exact relevance then the only two cases I could use are Pace v Mr N and Link v Mrs P which I didn't think had much clout 

Le_Kirk

Is there a reason why you jump from paragraph 6 back to paragraph 1?

Coupon-mad

Why are you now thinking of entirely removing CEL v Chan just because you hadn't yet found the right wording everyone is using on every defence and WS thread?

It's linked in the Template Defence thread for starters, as well as being repeated on every second thread this past month.

justiceseeker180

Hang on I am getting mixed messages/confused here, @1505grandad questioned the relevance of the saeed case to mine. So what cases are relevant to mine?

@Coupon-mad No thats not why its not included, obviously I have not understood the relevance or why it is important to be include in my case.

justiceseeker180

Le_Kirk said:

Is there a reason why you jump from paragraph 6 back to paragraph 1?

No, thanks for pointing it out.

justiceseeker180

The Civil Enforcement VS Ming Tak Chan Judgment against this Claim

6. 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.

and

(b) how the purported and unspecified extra 'monies relating to the parking charges' arose

7.  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. I trust 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.

8. I draw 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.

9. 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 of 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 (See exhibit xx)

Ok makes a bit more sense now

BikingBud

@Coupon-mad

More a general observation but triggered by the Nov 24 date, has it been verified?

Is this not additional observation of the pervasive and predatory situation we are currently enduring?

That ordinary citizens are having to endure extended periods, over 12 months !!!!!!, of excessive worry during which many might acquiesce to the tactics of the bully boy parking scammers and pay these unjustified overinflated invoices. Not because they feel they have done anything wrong but purely because they do not understand that the claims lack any real merit, they are mostly constructed as legalese bluster and in some instances deliberately false to mislead the victims and extract their money. Victims who want only rid of the oppressive cloud and to get on with their lives.

justiceseeker180

BikingBud said:

@Coupon-mad

More a general observation but triggered by the Nov 24 date, has it been verified?

Is this not additional observation of the pervasive and predatory situation we are currently enduring?

That ordinary citizens are having to endure extended periods, over 12 months !!!!!!, of excessive worry during which many might acquiesce to the tactics of the bully boy parking scammers and pay these unjustified overinflated invoices. Not because they feel they have done anything wrong but purely because they do not understand that the claims lack any real merit, they are mostly constructed as legalese bluster and in some instances deliberately false to mislead the victims and extract their money. Victims who want only rid of the oppressive cloud and to get on with their lives.

Tried to contact local court yesterday, was put through to national call centre. on hold aprox 30mins. Was told that november 24 was correct and also that a date as to when WS was required would likely be sent nearer that date (november 24)

UncleThomasCobley

justiceseeker180 said:

8. I draw 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.

A bit late for an "allocating judge". Change that to "Court".