NPM Northampton - PCN for staying in car for 4 minutes

loftytop15

Just this? or paragraph 1 also?

loftytop15

And completely omit the IPC PoC pdf from the skeleton email also? 

Coupon-mad

loftytop15 said:

And completely omit the IPC PoC pdf from the skeleton email also? 

Yes.

You've clearly got to renumber the paragraphs or it makes no sense!

And head it up with the obvious heading, the claim number, parties, and court location & hearing date/time, then sign & date it.  

loftytop15

Headings all done that match the claimants with court, parties etc.
and skeleton as follows, all good?

1. Preliminary matter: The Defendant denies the Claimant’s claim and believes the claim should be struck out as there was no parking event, and therefore the defendant did not enter into a parking contract. a) There was no consideration period given, no parking contract was entered
2. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. 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 authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) 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 Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage

5. Links to the Chan and Akande cases here that will be sent as part of the defendant’s Skeleton argument email submission

Coupon-mad

Paragraph 1 is completely wrong (you are straying away from the point of the skelly) and not what Chan & Akande say at all. This is not the basis if your skeleton nor is 'consideration periods' your reason for asking for the claim to be struck out: 

1. Preliminary matter: The Defendant denies the Claimant’s claim and believes the claim should be struck out as there was no parking event, and therefore the defendant did not enter into a parking contract. a) There was no consideration period given, no parking contract was entered

loftytop15

Okay apologies, I'm a little confused as i thought you said that was my main defence point (no consideration period). Should this be on a separate paragraph after paragraphs 2-5?
And if so what should paragraph 1 be?

Coupon-mad

The skelly isn't reiterating your defence.  It's merely bringing in the legal argument you missed.

loftytop15

Won in court!

I said I have a preliminary matter but the claimant still spoke first as the Judge had already started asking them directly on what terms they are claiming for.

The Judge referred to chan a lot and was asking the claimant how Chan is different from this case of which they couldnt.

The Judge said gladstones have changed some of their practices since Chan and wonder why they still claim at court.

He then turned to me after about 20 mins of the solicitor scrambling through docs trying to find the “terms of claim” and said “I don't need to hear from you”.

But then later asked “you had a preliminary matter?”, i responded “the claim should be struck out” of which he then nodded and agreed.

I then asked for costs and got £95 as thats capped pay for a day of which the solicitor tried to halve (?!?) as I said I was able to take a half day instead of full to which the Judge did not agree.

Thankyou so much to all the help I've received on here, I've spent around 15 hours on this I believe and its been over my head for a while.

flowercuppatea

Well done. Great to hear this. 

Coupon-mad

loftytop15 said:

Won in court!

I said I have a preliminary matter but the claimant still spoke first as the Judge had already started asking them directly on what terms they are claiming for.

The Judge referred to chan a lot and was asking the claimant how Chan is different from this case of which they couldnt.

The Judge said gladstones have changed some of their practices since Chan and wonder why they still claim at court.

He then turned to me after about 20 mins of the solicitor scrambling through docs trying to find the “terms of claim” and said “I don't need to hear from you”.

But then later asked “you had a preliminary matter?”, i responded “the claim should be struck out” of which he then nodded and agreed.

I then asked for costs and got £95 as thats capped pay for a day of which the solicitor tried to halve (?!?) as I said I was able to take a half day instead of full to which the Judge did not agree.

Thankyou so much to all the help I've received on here, I've spent around 15 hours on this I believe and its been over my head for a while.

Yay! Nicely done with that skelly!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Chan wins it. Gladstones have not changed their POC since Chan by the way.