DCB Legal Claim form issued - help drafting defence

PartyPops

Coupon-mad said:

Pretty good but remove para 4 otherwise the Judge will wonder why you kept repeating the same conduct, knowing the PCN risk. Leave that unsaid.

Change para 21 to add CPMS v Akande (search the forum for @Le_Kirk's newest judgments link including Akande) as there are now TWO persuasive appeal judgments saying claims like this should be struck out for want of complying with Part 16.

Thanks, so keep Paragraph 22 referring to CEL v Chan and add in Paragraph 21 newest judgements including Akande?

@Coupon-mad
I've added a paragraph below:
21. A recent persuasive appeal judgement in Car Park Management Limited v Charles Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) indicates that this POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16. On the 10th May 2024, in this cited case, HHJ Evans is quoted that ‘Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim. The Defendant cannot possibly plead his Defence because he does not know what the contractual term is said to be that he has breached and he does not know how he is said to have breached it.’. This is the same case where the particulars of claim fails to mention which part of the contract is breached. Another quote from HHJ Evans is that ‘This is a parking claim. The Particulars of Claim plead in the short form online document that there was a PCN for a contractual breach. It gave the date and the place and the registration number of the vehicle, and it said that the driver had failed to comply with the terms and conditions displayed’. Again, the particulars of the claim for the defendant refers to a contractual breach displaying the date and the place and the registration number of the vehicle but fails to mention which contractual term is breached. Given the similarities in the appeal, the court should strike out the claim using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 (See exhibit xx-11)


I have used the quoted above regarding the Civil Procedure Rule and the practice direction about the particulars of claim not being compliant exactly how it was on my POC. Are there any other advantages I can use from this judgement on my Witness statement or quote further from this case? I've updated the WS document linked, updated the exhibits and also added the additional paragraph (ignore the paragraph numbering as I've corrected that in my personal WS which is more organised with numbers and stuff as this one is a seperate censored doc just for illustration purposes) 

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  check you are quoting the correct title of the claimant in the new case mentioned above.

Also you are including an erroneous middle "e" in Judgment  -  check the docs you are exhibiting.

PartyPops

1505grandad said:

A heads-up  -  check you are quoting the correct title of the claimant in the new case mentioned above.

Also you are including an erroneous middle "e" in Judgment  -  check the docs you are exhibiting.

Thanks, I've updated it as below.

21. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Limited v Charles Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) indicates that this POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16. On the 10th May 2024, in this cited case, HHJ Evans is quoted that ‘Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim. The Defendant cannot possibly plead his Defence because he does not know what the contractual term is said to be that he has breached and he does not know how he is said to have breached it.’. This is the same case where the particulars of claim fails to mention which part of the contract is breached. Another quote from HHJ Evans is that ‘This is a parking claim. The Particulars of Claim plead in the short form online document that there was a PCN for a contractual breach. It gave the date and the place and the registration number of the vehicle, and it said that the driver had failed to comply with the terms and conditions displayed’. Again, the particulars of the claim for the defendant refers to a contractual breach displaying the date and the place and the registration number of the vehicle but fails to mention which contractual term is breached. Given the similarities in the appeal, the court should strike out the claim using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 (See exhibit xx-11)

1505grandad

"CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICE LTD"

Just musing  -  strange that Companies House show title as:-

CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CPMS) LTD

09091690 - Incorporated on 18 June 2014

The Bristol Office, 2nd Floor 5 High Street, Westbury On Trym, Bristol, BS9 3BY

PartyPops

1505grandad said:

"CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICE LTD"

Just musing  -  strange that Companies House show title as:-

CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CPMS) LTD

09091690 - Incorporated on 18 June 2014

The Bristol Office, 2nd Floor 5 High Street, Westbury On Trym, Bristol, BS9 3BY

They probably go by many names like all these crooked parking companies

Gr1pr

PartyPops said:

1505grandad said:

"CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICE LTD"

Just musing  -  strange that Companies House show title as:-

CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CPMS) LTD

09091690 - Incorporated on 18 June 2014

The Bristol Office, 2nd Floor 5 High Street, Westbury On Trym, Bristol, BS9 3BY

They probably go by many names like all these crooked parking companies

Maybe so, but you should be using the Registered official name, like grandad says, because many have similar names and initials , and you have not been using the correct name, coupon mad mentioned their initials, with an S on the end, not an L 

So attention to detail, exact details, are required in legal documents and cases

1505grandad

""CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICE LTD"

That is the name of the Appellant actually stated on the official legal Court Judgment doc.  -  as shown in Le_Kirk's Judgments list.

Companies House show title as:-

CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CPMS) LTD

09091690 - Incorporated on 18 June 2014

PartyPops

1505grandad said:

""CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICE LTD"

That is the name of the Appellant actually stated on the official legal Court Judgment doc.  -  as shown in Le_Kirk's Judgments list.

Companies House show title as:-

CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CPMS) LTD

09091690 - Incorporated on 18 June 2014

This is why I have used the "CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICE LTD" name as opposed to the one on Companies House as I am referring to the judgment doc in my WS and it probably needs to match the document.

Coupon-mad

Good point well made.

We are in your side and we are a pedantic lot, hence the questions about that!

PartyPops

Hi All,

Deadline to pay the court fee was yesterday and I have just checked and can confirm the Claimant has paid the fee.

I have a deadline to send the WS by 4th September to all parties and have prepared a final version which I would appreciate if anyone can check it out. I've highlighted in yellow the bits I've added / amended from the usual template.

@coupon-mad , @1505grandad here is the link to a censored version https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/52e6szxygyv0i0buqbj7z/WS-censored-draft.docx?rlkey=voqasmc5bnxk4sodbtag5bxiq&st=7jpg7pe3&dl=0