County Court Claim - Parking - No Lighting

Coupon-mad

d1tzl said:

When you say a recent recent appeal case, are you referring to my appeal?

No. You aren't doing an appeal.

And you will be adding a LOT more than a single extra paragraph and renumbering the template defence by just one!  

As well as writing a (dead easy) paragraph 3 of your own facts, you need to search & also add:

- the usual defence words about Bransby Wilson.  Copy one someone wrote in any MB claim thread this year and include a screenshot of the recent judgment against MB;

- the defence words used in Gladstones cases arguing against the extortionate 10.25% interest;

- the fact that the POC fail to state the breach (I'll help you with a link for this one: go read the thread today by @andyl3004 and add those words and screenshots too);

The rest you can find easily yourself, with a few forum searches.  Change BEST MATCH to 'NEWEST' when searching.

d1tzl

Here are my draft paragraphs for the Defence:

3. The defendant claims they used the car park late at night, as time stamped in the PCN. The defendant claims that there was no adequate lighting of signage in clear breach of the Private Parking Code of Practise section A.3.2.

 

3.1 It is noted that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given ‘adequate notice ‘of the charge. POFA 2012 defines ‘adequate notice’ as follows:“(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) ‘adequate notice’ means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including , the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”

 

4. The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract was entered into with Minster Baywatch -

(a)   The car park signage clearly states it is managed by ‘Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd’.

5. The Claimant Minster Baywatch Ltd, company number 07517434, and the car park operator Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd, company number 04707572, are separate unrelated legal entities therefore, the Claimant has no standing to bring the claim.

6. Lord Denning's "Red Hand Rule" comment in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw, [1956] EWCA Civ 3, represents a good example here because it should be obvious at the time of the alleged event with whom a motorist is forming the contract.

-----------------------------

4. 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.

(iii).  Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if the entire sum was 'overdue' on the day of parking;

(iv).  Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  The highest rate allowed in civil claims (only at the discretion of courts) is 8%. I have discovered from research that this legal representative roboclaim firm (connected to the IPC trade body) always adds 10.25% interest and are highly likely to be one of the top five 'bulk parking case litigators' shown in the Government's analysis, linked elsewhere in this statement.  Gladstones indisputably issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year, all of which have the wrong interest rate (a deplorable 10.25%)  and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which can add hundreds to some claims.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.  I hope the Judge addresses this in the final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction Gladstones as the court sees fit because it appears that this is not the work of the Claimant themselves.

Am i to be attaching photos to the defence statement? Or should i do this in the witness statement?

d1tzl

I have just realised that the Private parkide code of practise is outdated, and i should refer to this instead "BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice"

Coupon-mad

Where's the third thing I told you to add and I gave you a link to a thread including it.  And it's in EVERY defence you care to click on now!  You are missing the Chan judgment!

Latest example seen in the defence by @hharry100

d1tzl

Coupon-mad said:

Where's the third thing I told you to add and I gave you a link to a thread including it.  And it's in EVERY defence you care to click on now!  You are missing the Chan judgment!

Latest example seen in the defence by @hharry100

So Add this?

2. The Defendant draws 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).  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 authority.

3. 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

Coupon-mad

And the transcript too.  There's no point mentioning CEL v Chan but not showing it to the allocating Judge!

d1tzl

Coupon-mad said:

And the transcript too.  There's no point mentioning CEL v Chan but not showing it to the allocating Judge!

How is this usually added? and where can i find the specifics. I've never written a court defence before so this is all very new lol

Coupon-mad

And the transcript too.  There's no point mentioning CEL v Chan but not showing it to the allocating Judge!

How is this usually added? and where can i find the specifics. I've never written a court defence before so this is all very new lol 

I already showed you. Nor has any newbie.  You are the same as all posters and they are all easily doing this. And I gave you a link so you can see how someone did it yesterday.

"Latest example seen in the defence by @hharry100 "

UncleThomasCobley

Make sure that it is preceded by a bold sub-heading:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

d1tzl

Here is updated draft : 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.  The Defendant draws 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).  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 authority.

4.   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

5. The defendant claims they used the car park late at night, as time stamped in the PCN. The defendant claims that there was absolutely no lighting of signage at hours of dusk operation, in clear breach of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

6. It is noted that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given ‘adequate notice ‘of the charge. POFA 2012 defines ‘adequate notice’ as follows:“(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) ‘adequate notice’ means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including , the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”

7. The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract was entered into with Minster Baywatch -

(a)   The car park signage clearly states it is managed by ‘Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd’.

8. The Claimant Minster Baywatch Ltd, company number 07517434, and the car park operator Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd, company number 04707572, are separate unrelated legal entities therefore, the Claimant has no standing to bring the claim.

9. Lord Denning's "Red Hand Rule" comment in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw, [1956] EWCA Civ 3, represents a good example here because it should be obvious at the time of the alleged event with whom a motorist is forming the contract.

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:

(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.

(iii).  Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if the entire sum was 'overdue' on the day of parking;

(iv).  Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  The highest rate allowed in civil claims (only at the discretion of courts) is 8%. I have discovered from research that this legal representative roboclaim firm (connected to the IPC trade body) always adds 10.25% interest and are highly likely to be one of the top five 'bulk parking case litigators' shown in the Government's analysis, linked elsewhere in this statement.  Gladstones indisputably issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year, all of which have the wrong interest rate (a deplorable 10.25%)  and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which can add hundreds to some claims.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.  I hope the Judge addresses this in the final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction Gladstones as the court sees fit because it appears that this is not the work of the Claimant themselves.

ALL BELOW FROM TEMPLATE.