MET Parking taking me to court N1 received Help!

hharry100

Defence

 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').

1. The facts 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 appears 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 is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver

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

4 images of Chan case

. The Defendant vaguely remembers on the day in question he and his family had gone shopping in the Asda Superstore and parked in the car park outside the store, The Defendants young son required the use of a bathroom urgently therefore the defendant parked in an empty parking bay close to the store entrance and making sure the bay was not a disabled bay, Upon returning to his vehicle the defendant noticed he had received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

5. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where he had parked his vehicle,showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked.The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorists. Due to the age of the alleged breach of contract which is nearly 5 years old the Defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN(s). 

6.  The Particulars of Claim ('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 is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.  The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise:

(a) the contractual term(s) relied upon;
(b) the details of any alleged breach of contract
(c) how many 'PCNs' are being pursued in this claim, exactly when the alleged conduct occurred (dates and times) and how much each of these charges were;

6.1.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

Followed by the rest of my defence 

Coupon-mad

Remove 6 (repetitition) and make 6.1 your para 6 instead.  Then it's all good. 

hharry100

Defence

 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').

1. The facts 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 appears 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 is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver

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

4. The Defendant vaguely remembers on the day in question he and his family had gone shopping in the Asda Superstore and parked in the car park outside the store, The Defendants young son required the use of a bathroom urgently therefore the defendant parked in an empty parking bay close to the store entrance and made sure the bay was not a disabled bay before going shopping, Upon returning to his vehicle the defendant noticed he had received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

5. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where he had parked his vehicle, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorists. Due to the age of the alleged breach of contract which is nearly 5 years old the Defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN(s). 

6.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

hharry100

PDF copy of complete defence sent to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk including case number in subject line and acknowledgment received.

Coupon-mad

PDF copy of complete defence sent to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk including case number in subject line

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

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').

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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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 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 is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

^EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH If you were driving, add 'and driver' after the word 'keeper'.

OR if the Defendant doesn't know who was driving, say that.

OR deny being the driver if you weren't: ONLY IF TRUE!

5. [EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...NB: defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me']. 

Say why the car was there - if you know - but don't answer to details that are not stated in the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM. If you didn't get any letters or it was years ago & you can't recall if you were driving, say that.  ONLY IF TRUE.

If this was a residential site where the driver lives/was a permitted visitor, state those parking rights.

Older residential defence examples are in the NEWBIES thread.  CRIB SOME PARAGRAPHS BUT THOSE EXAMPLES ARE OLD SO DO NOT USE THEM IN FULL. USE THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE.

The rest of the template with paragraphs numbered by you, becomes #6 onwards.

NOTHING IS TO BE DELETED FROM THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE

hharry100

Just to update everyone following my case I received a letter from the courts on 16th Oct stating

"I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor). The claimant may contact you direct to attempt to resolve any dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.

Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay."

Now that 28 days have elapsed and I have had no
Contact from MET parking does this mean they have lost the right to pursue me?

Le_Kirk

I hope so but we've seen it so many times, the claimant will complain if the case is stayed as they will claim they informed you/CNBC that they intend to proceed and the stay will be lifted.

Coupon-mad

hharry100 said:

Just to update everyone following my case I received a letter from the courts on 16th Oct stating

"I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor). The claimant may contact you direct to attempt to resolve any dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.

Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay."

Now that 28 days have elapsed and I have had no
Contact from MET parking does this mean they have lost the right to pursue me?

No.

This stage is already in the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread and I tell you the timeline there.

Coupon-mad

Remove all this:

The car parked bays were all full and the Defendant had another emergency at home where the Defendant other child was waiting to enter the house because he has lost his keys and was in desperate need to use the toilet. So, the Defendant quickly parked the car and run inside the complex to collect the Defendant daughter in the primary school.

6. There was a confusion about the section of the private land and the public highway. The Defendant was not really clear whether the area of where the car was parked was part of a public highway or part of a private land. Both public highway and the private land on Eldon Way was so close and obscured with no clear cut demarcation between the two sections of the public highway and private land. So, the Defendant was of the initial belief that the area the Defendant parked the car was a public highway.

7. The signage close to where the defendant parked the car was confusing and ambiguous, the Defendant was not able to understand the ambiguous wordings on the signage quickly because the Defendant was in a rush due to emergency at home. In addition, there was no Parking Charge Notice (PCN) attached to the Defendant car windscreen when the Defendant got back to his car. So, the defendant was not aware that he got a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

8. The Claimant claimed the Defendant is pursued for the breach of the terms on the signs (the contract) as indicated on the Particulars of Claim (POC) but the sign nearest to where the Defendant parked has no full details of terms and conditions but rather this sign referred to other notices that were far away and very obscured to any motorists, adding further confusion about the area. It may be that the reasons for putting the terms and conditions far away from where the Defendant parked, is because the Claimant has no jurisdiction in the place where the Defendant parked, and the Claimant jurisdiction (private land ) is further away where the notices of terms and conditions are located, which is not the area the Defendant parked. This was the Defendant belief.

And bring para 10 up to come underneath the Chan transcript.

hharry100

Hi, I've had contact from DCB legal today stating
"Having reviewed the content of your Defence, we are writing to inform you that our Client intends to proceed with the claim. The Court will direct both parties to file directions questionnaires in due course. In anticipation of that we are enclosing a copy. Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. Therefore, in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 838 7038 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence."

They have also sent me their directions questionnaire which is asking for the case to be heard at the claimants nearest court.
Should I attempt to contact DCB legal as they have also written they may settle this case outside of court?