An appeal letter PPC

Coupon-mad

Yes that would be a good idea.  Although the POC identifies the breach, it specifies nothing else, not even the breakdown of the monies claimed.  There is no sum mentioned and a parking charge can't exceed the £100 industry cap.

I assume they added a fake DRA fee?

Freesoul01

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that would be a good idea.  Although the POC identifies the breach, it specifies nothing else, not even the breakdown of the monies claimed.  There is no sum mentioned and a parking charge can't exceed the £100 industry cap.

I assume they added a fake DRA fee?

The space for Q D1 is very limited, so I downloaded and hand wrote the answer, would this be ok?

Freesoul01

JoeN1988 said:

That has to be a contender for the worst POC from a PPC ever, and that's a tough competition to win.

Did your Defence include a mention of CEL V Chan? It's an important appeal ruling that has seen terrible POCs struck off the register before.

I was advised for me to attach a copy of said transcript to the DQ that you'll be doing next (having failed to include it in my defense). The object being to draw the Allocating Judge's attention to the woeful POC that looked liked it was completed by an unsupervised work experience candidate.

what do you mean by CEL V Chan?

JoeN1988

As I explained, it is an Appeal Case where the judge found the Particulars of Claim to be inadequate to the point where it was struck off the register without looking any further.

Copies of the transcript can be found on the forum.

It is advised to be included in any defense where the PoC failed to identify the breach of contract. Although your PoC did include that there are several other failings worth highlighting. 

There are rules for what must be included in a PoC. These can be found in the Practice Direction (16.4)

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16

JoeN1988

Have a look at the bottom link and identify which parts are missing from your POC.

When you email your Directions Questionnaire, write a few words in the body of the email drawing the judges attention to the failings of your PoC and attach a pdf copy of the CEL v Chan transcript to support it

Freesoul01

JoeN1988 said:

Have a look at the bottom link and identify which parts are missing from your POC.

When you email your Directions Questionnaire, write a few words in the body of the email drawing the judges attention to the failings of your PoC and attach a pdf copy of the CEL v Chan transcript to support it

Do you think the judge will look at any explanation in an email? as you know I have already sent my defence, if I had known I would've considered that. How about this amount included in the PoC  

Coupon-mad

Freesoul01 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that would be a good idea.  Although the POC identifies the breach, it specifies nothing else, not even the breakdown of the monies claimed.  There is no sum mentioned and a parking charge can't exceed the £100 industry cap.

I assume they added a fake DRA fee?

The space for Q D1 is very limited, so I downloaded and hand wrote the answer, would this be ok?

Yes - but also state the new service address in the body of the email AND mention URGENT - NEW SERVICE ADDRESS' in the subject line

Freesoul01

@Coupon-mad , @JoeN1988  apology for bothering you, may I get a response for the below question please? 


Based on the photo above, can i add this to my email? 

The Defendant would like to draws the allocating Judge's attention that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  PPC 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.

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 Practice Direction 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 same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Le_Kirk

Freesoul01 said:

 The Defendant would like to draws the allocating Judge's  draw to the attention of the allocating judge  that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  ............

Adjusted as above is my suggestion.

JoeN1988

This is what i sent. You'll obviously need to make alterations based on your circumstances. Attach the CEL v Chan transcript as a pdf to support this.

Bear in mind I'm not experienced in this like the regulars. The below is an example only.



Dear Sirs,


Re: Claim XXXXXXXX 

Please find attached completed Directions Questionnaire (Form N180).

Please also find attached a case transcript for CEL v Chan.

The particulars of the claim made against me are woefully vague. PD 16.7.5 states that:

"Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done."

"Registered keeper and/or driver" does not "state by whom", it is only a generic allegation. 

The claimant is alleging that a P&D ticket was not "valid", they have failed to say "when" (a time) as a date on its own is not specific.

They have not stated "where" the alleged contravention took place. "The Warwick Road" is a public highway so it would be impossible to have entered into a contract with a private parking company. 

 CEL v Chan applies as they have failed to adhere to CPR16.4(1)(e) and PD16.7.5.

It is my hope that the Judge recognises the inadequacies of the Claimant's PoC, as did His Honour Judge Murch in the above case, and strike out the claim.

Yours Faithfully,