CEL County Court Claim Form Received - Advice Pls

v209

sorry, I know its BH, just a quick bump to see if any other advice please.

KeithP

v209 said:

sorry, I know its BH, just a quick bump to see if any other advice please.

Earlier it was suggested...

KeithP said:

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Over 90% of a suggested Defence has already been written for you. All you have to do is write paragraphs 2 and 3 following the guidance offered within that template Defence.
When you are ready, show us your proposed replacements for those paragraphs 2 and 3.

v209

thanks KeithP - sorry I should've been a bit clearer - my defence from first post (built from templates suggested by this site).

I'm not sure if para 3 still holds given the NTK feedback i've received  - but grateful for any advice,

thank you.




2. It is admitted that on the material date, the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question; however, liability is denied. Due to the significant time that has elapsed since the dates listed on the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant is unable to ascertain with certainty who was driving the vehicle at the relevant times, particularly as multiple drivers had access to the vehicle during that period.
3. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant further requires the Claimant to provide strict proof of their claim, including evidence of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and unequivocal proof that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the relevant dates and times.
4. 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”.
5. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.
6. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and © how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum.
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. The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3
8. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"
9. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either.

Le_Kirk

however, liability is denied

You don't need this in your paragraph 2# as it is already included in para #1.

B789

Paras #2 and #3 might be slightly better, at least grammatically like this:

• The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date, but denies any liability in this matter. Given the considerable length of time that has elapsed since the dates listed on the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant is unable to definitively establish who was driving the vehicle at the relevant times, as multiple individuals had access to the vehicle during that period.

• The Defendant contends that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper that is compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, the Claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as the vehicle's keeper. The Defendant requires the Claimant to provide compelling evidence to support their claim, including strict proof that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the relevant dates and times, as well as evidence of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

v209

thats brilliant, thank you.

Updated to this:

2.     The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date, but denies any liability in this matter. Given the considerable length of time that has elapsed since the dates listed on the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant is unable to definitively establish who was driving the vehicle at the relevant times, as multiple individuals had access to the vehicle during that period.

3.     The Defendant contends that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper that is compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, the Claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as the vehicle's keeper. The Defendant requires the Claimant to provide compelling evidence to support their claim, including strict proof that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the relevant dates and times, as well as evidence of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

4.     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”.

5.     The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.

6.     The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum.

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.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3

8.     The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"

9.     No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either.

Coupon-mad

Then the entire rest of our Template Defence of course.  33-odd paragraphs all told.

You haven't given any facts.  This isn't much of a defence without facts.  Surely you recognise the location?  Can at least say you know it's a local retail park, or whatever?

Where is this place?

Le_Kirk

v209 said:

2.     The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date, but denies any liability in this matter. Given the considerable length of time that has elapsed since the dates listed on the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant is unable to definitively establish who was driving the vehicle at the relevant times, as multiple individuals had access to the vehicle during that period.

Please see my post here: -
Today at 10:01AM

v209

thank you  - yes, I've got the rest of the template defence there too.

The location is a private car park between a pub and a doctors surgery - I believe it owned by the Pub. Do you advise I need to acknowledge this in the defence?

I'm not sure what other facts would be helpful to raise but happy to take any guidance please.

v209

Le_Kirk said:

v209 said:

2.     The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date, but denies any liability in this matter. Given the considerable length of time that has elapsed since the dates listed on the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant is unable to definitively establish who was driving the vehicle at the relevant times, as multiple individuals had access to the vehicle during that period.

Please see my post here: -
Today at 10:01AM

thank you - apols I missed this - have amended and also added some additional para's (10-14) below for your consideration.

2.     The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date. Given the considerable length of time that has elapsed since the dates listed on the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant is unable to definitively establish who was driving the vehicle at the relevant times, as multiple individuals had access to the vehicle during that period.

3.     The Defendant contends that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper that is compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, the Claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as the vehicle's keeper. The Defendant requires the Claimant to provide compelling evidence to support their claim, including strict proof that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the relevant dates and times, as well as evidence of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

4.     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”.

5.     The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.

6.     The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum.

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.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3

8.     The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"

9.     No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either.

10.     The Defendant argues that the signage at the location was wholly inadequate for the purpose of forming a contract with the motorist. The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract with the motorist. However, the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the signage at the location was clear, legible, and placed in such a way that it was possible for a motorist entering the site to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to park.

11.  The Defendant contends that the signs were positioned at an inappropriate height or were obscured, thus were not easily readable without a conscious effort. Additionally, the size of the print was too small for any driver to read from their vehicle or even while walking, especially considering the amount of text presented. The Claimant is reminded of the need for the signage to comply with the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association which stipulates that terms should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the night, and that signs should be readable from all parking spaces.

12.  The Defendant asserts that the parking charge demanded is excessive and disproportionate to any loss incurred by the Claimant. The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but rather appears to be a penalty intended to deter motorists, which is not permissible under UK law.

13.  The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis ruled that while parking charges could serve a legitimate interest, the charges must not be extravagant or unconscionable. In this case, the Claimant has not demonstrated any legitimate interest that justifies such a substantial charge. Furthermore, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has not incurred any significant costs as a result of the alleged contravention, given the automated nature of the Claimant's business model.

14.  The Defendant requests that the court gives due consideration to the proportionality of the charge and whether it serves to enrich the Claimant at the expense of the motorist, rather than simply covering the Claimant's administrative expenses. It is the Defendant's belief that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss but an attempt to profit from an alleged breach. As such, the charge is punitive and should not be enforceable.