PCN DCB Legal

B789

Get rid of the (i), (ii) etc. numbering. Every paragraph should be numbered sequentially with an integer. You have missed out a significant and "persuasive" recent appeal case which should get this thrown out at allocation stage.

1. 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 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. 

2. 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.

andyl3004

Thanks all - this feels pretty good now. Final draft below (I hope)

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 licence 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 vehicle. The Defendant denies the claim on the following grounds.

3. Parking terms & conditions (whatever they may be because the POC fail to specify the alleged breach) were not stated on the basic welcome signs at the entry to the X Retail Park, nor were there adequately prominent signs or terms communicated near many of the spaces inside the car park.

4. Parking restrictions were not signposted at all on a link road through which the Defendant exited to an adjacent Retail Park (the Y Retail Park).

5. The Defendant did not receive initial communication from the Claimant until inflated charges had been added, as correspondence was sent to a previous address linked to the Defendant’s vehicle’s V5 document.  Thus the Defendant was denied any opportunity to appeal because the current parking industry line is "it's too late - pay up and pay more".  This despite the fact that the Government's new statutory Code (linked later in this defence) requires a fresh Notice to be served at the original rate, and appeal to be made available, in cases where the first Notice was not received.

6. In addition to these facts, 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 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. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing:

Picture One - Wakefield Judgement

8.  Furthermore, 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:

Picture Two - Luton Judgement

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.

10. 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:

Coupon-mad

Eek!  Good - but mIssing the MAJOR THING.

Please don't send it without the third REALLY IMPORTANT IMAGE that needs to go - full transcript - under paragraph 6:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6473149/major-judgement-where-judge-strike-out-the-claim-form/p1

The persuasive judgment from HHJ Murch should be picture one, as seen in the thread linked above.

image two (Wakefield):


image three (Luton):

And you could even add (Manchester: DJ McMurtrie and DJ Ranson):

1505grandad

Also note how the word "Judgment" is spelled on the docs in this context  -  there is no middle "e".

andyl3004

As per your suggestions @Coupon-mad obviously except for images dont copy and paste

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 licence 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 vehicle. The Defendant denies the claim on the following grounds.

3. Parking terms & conditions (whatever they may be because the POC fail to specify the alleged breach) were not stated on the basic welcome signs at the entry to the XRetail Park, nor were there adequately prominent signs or terms communicated near many of the spaces inside the car park.

4. Parking restrictions were not signposted at all on a link road through which the Defendant exited to an adjacent Retail Park (the Y Retail Park).

5. The Defendant did not receive initial communication from the Claimant until inflated charges had been added, as correspondence was sent to a previous address linked to the Defendant’s vehicle’s V5 document.  Thus the Defendant was denied any opportunity to appeal because the current parking industry line is "it's too late - pay up and pay more".  This despite the fact that the Government's new statutory Code (linked later in this defence) requires a fresh Notice to be served at the original rate, and appeal to be made available, in cases where the first Notice was not received.

6. In addition to these facts, 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 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. See below.

 

7. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. See below.

8.  Likewise, 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. See below.

9. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. See below.

10. 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.

andyl3004

  Thanks for help everyone - all submitted and acknowledgement received.

Is there a timeline on the DQ questionnaire that is as strict as the Defence etc? Id like to get the ball rolling as soon as possible while I'm in the swing of it.

Umkomaas

You won't see a your DQ from the CNBC much before a couple of months time.

Le_Kirk

andyl3004 said:

Is there a timeline on the DQ questionnaire that is as strict as the Defence etc? Id like to get the ball rolling as soon as possible while I'm in the swing of it.

When you receive the DQ, you will get another letter with it that tells you the deadline.

Coupon-mad

andyl3004 said:

As per your suggestions @Coupon-mad obviously except for images dont copy and paste

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 licence 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 vehicle. The Defendant denies the claim on the following grounds.

3. Parking terms & conditions (whatever they may be because the POC fail to specify the alleged breach) were not stated on the basic welcome signs at the entry to the XRetail Park, nor were there adequately prominent signs or terms communicated near many of the spaces inside the car park.

4. Parking restrictions were not signposted at all on a link road through which the Defendant exited to an adjacent Retail Park (the Y Retail Park).

5. The Defendant did not receive initial communication from the Claimant until inflated charges had been added, as correspondence was sent to a previous address linked to the Defendant’s vehicle’s V5 document.  Thus the Defendant was denied any opportunity to appeal because the current parking industry line is "it's too late - pay up and pay more".  This despite the fact that the Government's new statutory Code (linked later in this defence) requires a fresh Notice to be served at the original rate, and appeal to be made available, in cases where the first Notice was not received.

6. In addition to these facts, 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 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. See below.

 

7. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. See below.

8.  Likewise, 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. See below.

9. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. See below.

10. 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.

Great, so with that addition, with the rest of the Template Defence renumbered below it, you must have ended up with over 35 paragraphs in your PDF defence?

andyl3004

It continues …. I have received DQ form needed to be return to court and claimant by 14/12/23. I remember there being thread contributions that stated never send items “signed for” to these scammers - does such advice apply to the DQ as well? As I can’t see an email address I will have to photocopy and pay two postal charges. Any advice welcome all.  Thank you.