Civil national business centre

UncleThomasCobley

If those PoC don't stipulate the actual breach of terms, then you need the following as your para #2 and #3, including the bold sub-header:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

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

qazxswedc123

UncleThomasCobley said:

If those PoC don't stipulate the actual breach of terms, then you need the following as your para #2 and #3, including the bold sub-header:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

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

sorry im a bit new with all this. the poc being the letter i posted here? i dont eve nhave the other letters to know what they have stipulated

KeithP

qazxswedc123 said:

UncleThomasCobley said:

If those PoC don't stipulate the actual breach of terms, then you need the following as your para #2 and #3, including the bold sub-header:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

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

sorry im a bit new with all this. the poc being the letter i posted here? i dont eve nhave the other letters to know what they have stipulated

The poc being the Particulars of Claim. 
The Particulars of Claim are stated on your Claim Form which you showed us in your opening post.

You actually used the term POC in your post on 26 September at 4:37PM.
Did you not wonder then what it meant?  

qazxswedc123

KeithP said:

qazxswedc123 said:

UncleThomasCobley said:

If those PoC don't stipulate the actual breach of terms, then you need the following as your para #2 and #3, including the bold sub-header:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

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

sorry im a bit new with all this. the poc being the letter i posted here? i dont eve nhave the other letters to know what they have stipulated

The poc being the Particulars of Claim. 
The Particulars of Claim are stated on your Claim Form which you showed us in your opening post.

You actually used the term POC in your post on 26 September at 4:37PM.
Did you not wonder then what it meant?  

dont hate me haha 

so looking at the claims form i cant actually see anything so will add those in
as i need to send off my defence in a few days 
do u feel this is good enough to send off?

thanks 

 

Coupon-mad

No idea, please show us your defence.  You realise you are meant to include images of judgments/orders as seen in recent defences?

e.g. the defence by @Rorythoperr

qazxswedc123

Coupon-mad said:

No idea, please show us your defence.  You realise you are meant to include images of judgments/orders as seen in recent defences?

e.g. the defence by @Rorythoperr

shall i email over the word document?

Coupon-mad

No, copy & paste the defence into a reply here.

Don't try pm-ing anyone as we have no time.

qazxswedc123

Coupon-mad said:

No, copy & paste the defence into a reply here.

Don't try pm-ing anyone as we have no time.

ok well it'll be the same as what i added earlier plus the recommendations added. 

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.

3. On the day in question, the Defendant briefly pulled over while remaining inside their vehicle. They did so out of concern for safety and the need to ascertain parking conditions in the area. Given the absence of available parking spaces and limited visibility of nearby parking signage, the Defendant opted to briefly stop and assess the situation from within their vehicle. Their primary objective was to ensure that they adhered to parking regulations while avoiding any potential traffic hazards. The journey was then continued within minutes, so this stop was part of the normal course of driving and not a parking event at all. The PCN was issued within minutes, based on covert and predatory tactics and in breach of the Code of Practice rules on ‘consideration/grace’ periods.

4. it is essential to highlight the inadequacy of the signage at the location in question. The Defendant firmly asserts that the lack of clear and visible signage contributed significantly to the misunderstanding of parking regulations. The absence of proper signage made it challenging for any reasonable person to discern the parking rules and restrictions in the area.

5. Along with these facts, a recent persuasive appeal decision in Civil Enforcement Limited v. Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would suggest the PoC does not adhere to Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice Direction Part 16. The behaviour that amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to establish a claim for breach of contract was not specified in the particulars of the claim as filed and served, according to HHJ Murch's ruling in the mentioned case on August 15, 2023. According to the Defendant, the basis for this Claim is an agreement reached via conduct. The Defendant claims that the Claimant has not explained how the Defendant's actions in the POC have violated the provisions of the Contract (I have got all four pages in the actual version but only attached one here)

6. Due to a represented parking firm claimant intentionally violating fundamental CPRs, the defendant thinks the claim should have been rejected at the allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC.  District Judge Robinson dismissed the claim without a hearing at the Wakefield County Court on September 8, 2023 after considering the mirror image POC from Gladstones in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v. anon):

7. Likewise, District Judge Sprague at the County Court in Luton dismissed a similarly poorly argued parking claim in January 2023 (again without a hearing) and provided a thorough justification for his decision:

8. Due to a represented parking firm claimant intentionally violating fundamental CPRs, the defendant thinks the claim should have been rejected at the allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC.

9-12 as per template 

13. Gladstones unfairly applied an interest rate of 10.25%, a seemingly arbitrary figure that exceeds the highest permissible rate in civil claims, which is 8%, subject to the court's discretion. Research reveals that this legal representative, operating as a roboclaim firm affiliated with the IPC trade body, consistently imposes a 10.25% interest rate. Furthermore, they rank among the top five "bulk parking case litigators," as indicated in the government's analysis. Gladstones unquestionably initiate tens of thousands of inflated parking claims annually, all bearing the incorrect and objectionable 10.25% interest rate and the unconscionably inflated £60 or £70 charge per PCN, resulting in substantial augmentations to numerous claims. Given the Ministry of Justice's quarterly statistics indicating that 90% of small claims culminate in default County Court Judgments (CCJs), this practice undeniably constitutes an abuse of the system, seemingly driven by Gladstones' profit motive and unrelated to the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.

The rest as per defence template. 

Coupon-mad

Very good but I can tell from this old sentence "The POC is devoid of any detail" that you need to grab the Template Defence afresh because I dropped that last month.

qazxswedc123

Coupon-mad said:

Very good but I can tell from this old sentence "The POC is devoid of any detail" that you need to grab the Template Defence afresh because I dropped that last month.

ok let me do that and update it and hopefully have it sent over

thank u again