Civil National Business Centre FIne

HS2K

Below is my PoC

HS2K

Heres the latest draft.

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 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 and driver.

3. The alleged parking event is said to have taken place in 2018. The defendant wanted to park and eat inside the Mcdonalds restaurant, however all of the parking spaces located outside were occupied. Thus the defendant resulted in driving around to the nearest available parking space located in the same facility. 

Unknown to the defendant the next area of parking spaces located in the same facility, was only permitted for Starbucks customers. 

The signage separating the allowed parking area was poor and unclear at the time which causes confusion.

8.  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 (there is just a date range - only two dates stated - and no specifics whatsoever);

(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;

and

(d) how the purported and unspecified extra 'monies relating to the parking charges' arose and the breakdown of the extortionate quantum of almost two thousand pounds. 

8.1.  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.

8.2.  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.

9. 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 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

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.

@1505grandad @Coupon-mad see Poc details, very similar to other threads.

@Coupon-mad i have added the Gladstones deplorable 10.25% interest as seen on another post which i have copy and paste into mine, also the judgments striking out claims for lack of ropey pleaded POC which again copy and paste out of the thread you provided.  Am i right in saying this part replaces point 8 in the template?

@UncleThomasCobley reading para 2 of the template i included to say i was the driver and keeper of the vehicle. I assumed given that, in para 3 it should be expanded to give my side of the situation. Is this incorrect?

KeithP

Why does your unnumbered paragraph after paragraph numbered 9 rattle on about 10.25% interest?
10.25% interest isn't mentioned on your Claim Form.

Coupon-mad

(there is just a date range - only two dates stated - and no specifics whatsoever);
(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;
and
(d) how the purported and unspecified extra 'monies relating to the parking charges' arose and the breakdown of the extortionate quantum of almost two thousand pounds. 

Pardon? Two grand?

Don't copy stuff that's irrelevant.

UncleThomasCobley

Also, those PoC require you to put the following into the template defence as paras #2 and #3:

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

HS2K

@KeithP Correct I understand this more, as my PoC as the correct 8% increase i can remove this entire section. 

@Coupon-mad Apologies I think this has been provided by the post above.

@UncleThomasCobley Thanks to be fully clear is the text its own para 2 and 3 with the following portion that i have posted underneath as para 4 and 5?

Defence: 

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 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 and driver.

5. The alleged parking event is said to have taken place in 2018. The defendant wanted to park and eat inside the Mcdonalds restaurant, however all of the parking spaces located outside were occupied. Thus the defendant resulted in driving around to the nearest available parking space located in the same facility. Unknown to the defendant the next area of parking spaces located in the same facility, was only permitted for Starbucks customers. The signage separating the allowed parking area was poor and unclear at the time which causes confusion.

Thanks all!

UncleThomasCobley

The text provided is paras #2 and #3. It should also include the image of the ruling embedded after it. What follows after that is the rest of the defence template although there is some repetition in your para #4. The subheading should be in bold to highlight it as a preliminary matter. This is the image of the Chan judgment:

Coupon-mad

I would add to 5 that the Defendant does not know what they are supposed to have done wrong and the POC do not assist.

Remove this:

"Unknown to the defendant the next area of parking spaces located in the same facility, was only permitted for Starbucks customers."

Le_Kirk

Good, I was going to suggest that and maybe the bit about signage (don't do the Claimant's job for them by suggesting what you did wrong) and remember that every paragraph needs a number.

HS2K

Thanks all, updates below.

Going forwards i may use a google doc and have the entire defence on there to contain it easier. Does google docs require everyone to have access just to read it? Or does a hyperlink work for anyone to view?

Defence: 

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 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 and driver.

5. The alleged parking event is said to have taken place in 2018. The defendant wanted to park and eat inside the Mcdonalds restaurant, however all of the parking spaces located outside were occupied. Thus the defendant resulted in driving around to the nearest available parking space located in the same facility. The Defendant does not know what they are supposed to have done wrong and the POC do not assist. The signage separating the allowed parking area was poor and unclear at the time which causes confusion.