BW Legal - around 10 PCNs - what to do next?

Coupon-mad

Looks good at first glance. Change to ordinary sequential numbering.

And every paragraph needs a number.

Your current para 4 should go before the point about the other two transcripts because the HHJ Murch one is persuasive.  And you need to show that transcript.

As seen in the thread by @andyl3004 yesterday.

KeithP

Your paragraph 3.3 starts...

3.3 .  The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

Your paragraph 4.1 states...

4.1. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

I've not checked thoroughly for repetitions. Just noticed that one.

Grande228

Sure, i have corrected it as you say and it looks following

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 license 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 is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the motorcycle.

3. It is admitted that on XXXXX the Defendant’s motorcycle was almost certainly parked at XXX because this was the defendants partners home and due to the London living crisis also a temporary accommodation for Defendant, where they were de facto permitted to park a roadworthy motorcycle. Furthermore, it was unclear whether a charge was applied to motorcyclists because there were no obvious signals around the residential area, as well as development works going place at the time.  Maintaining the residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property does not include allowing everyone to be unfairly charged by a lurking ex-wheelclamper for normal life necessities like parking to unload groceries, visiting a partner.  Clearly there is no 'legitimate interest' supporting these enhanced parking charges in these circumstances and also no reason for the Claimant to sit on their hands for 3 years hoping to profit even further from exaggerated interest calculations. The parking tickets were issued on Defendant's old addresses, from which Defendant moved out in November 2021 and lived in XXXouse, XXXX until June 2022.During that short period of time Defendant updated his V5C address to temporary garage address situated in XXXX. 

4. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

5. The Claimant has previously issued another claim, number XXXX, against the Defendant with substantially identical particulars (except for dates), for the same cause of action, PCNs that should have been pleaded in that claim. The first claim has ruined the Defendant’s credit rating by causing a CCJ by default. The issuing of two separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case.  In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.” The decision is still good law, and has been cited with approval numerous times, including Aldi Stores v WSP Group plc [2008] 1 WLR 748 and Henley v Bloom [2010] 1 WLR 1770. The Court is invited to strike out the second claim due to cause of action estoppel and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for filing two abusive and exaggerated claims. 

Failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions".

6. Recent persuasive Appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44, attached) would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16.On the 23rd 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 Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct.  The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the PoC. 

7. The Defendant believes that the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

8. 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.

9. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  At the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC from Gladstones in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing:

10. Similarly, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning:

11. 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.

Coupon-mad

You still have a paragraph with no number.

And you haven't shown the HHJ Murch transcript here in this draft. The point is, you want that appeal transcript in the face of the allocating Judge!  Not just quoted words.

Grande228

I am planning to send the transcript as an attachment (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&dl=0) will that be fine ?

also fixed the paragraph

Coupon-mad

I would tack that on the end under your signature and date, and use a free online tool to merge the two PDFs so that it becomes an appendix - so that your defence and that transcript is a single attachment.

Don't send two attachments.  

Grande228

Thank you, going to send that exact defense for both claims tomorrow
Fingers crossed this gonna bring those scum of the earth peg or two
Also, signature can be e-signature (using online signature drawer) copied and send or i have to print out eveyrhting sign and then send it?

Le_Kirk

Signed digitally is OK or you could sign a piece of white paper and take a piccy of it and insert it at the end of your defence.  Always best to use correct spelling, especially in legal documents!

Grande228

Good evening guys, i have received letter from BWL saying that they are going to proceed with the claim and are sure that will win the case

Coupon-mad

Standard. Seen in all BW threads.