QDR Solicitors - Claim for multiple parking charges.

Gr1pr

An informed disabled person or their carers would never assume that the parking was free, or unrestricted either, they would have studied the blue booklet that came with the blue badge 

The only aspect a disabled person would expect is reasonable adjustments to be made under the Equality Act 2010, typically a disabled parking bay or bays, usually near the entrance or exit , plus the possibility of Extra time like on many council car parks , easy access and lifts etc , disabled toilets maybe, depending on the premises being visited etc

Coupon-mad

I'd just swap the first bits around a little (as shown below) so it makes sense:

Witness Statement of Defendant

 

1.     I am XXXX, XXXX and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

 

2.     In my statement, I shall refer to (Exhibits 1 - 10) within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.   I must draw to the attention of the court that the Claim Issue Date in this case was 6th September 2023. As per Civil Procedure Rule 7.4. if serving separate Particulars of Claim (PoC), these must be served by the Claimant within 14 days after service of the Claim Form. The PoC was signed 21st September 2023, day 15, and arrived by post with the Defendant some days later.  The MCOL claim history will likely show the (too late) certificate of service date supplied to the CNBC by QDR Solicitors. Despite being legally represented, the Claimants appear to have 'crossed their fingers' and hoped that the Judge and I might not have noticed this improper service of the detailed PoC. The Claimants did not apply for relief from sanctions, therefore I believe that this breach of Civil Procedure Rule 7.4 (1) (b) should cause the claim to be struck out. (See Exhibit xx-01).

4.  If instead, the Court determines (due to the above failure to serve the document in time or apply for relief) that only the late and thus improperly served 'Detailed Particulars of Claim' initially stand struck out, then the Claimant's basic pleaded case has no prospects of success. I believe that the claim itself must also be dismissed for the following reasons:

5.  If the Claimant is only allowed to rely upon its original sparse pleadings dated 6th September 2023 then it is noted that these lacked any specificity, with no specified vehicle or location, nothing to indicate which term(s) of the alleged contract was/were purportedly breached, what conduct allegedly led to the charges, the dates/times of that alleged conduct nor even a breakdown of the heads of cost.

6.  Hopelessly, the claim itself also fails to explain on what basis I am being pursued; i.e. whether the Claimant is relying upon statutory 'keeper liability' provisions, or has merely assumed that I was driving on one or both occasions.  On the balance of probabilities, due to multiple drivers in the family, there is less than a 50/50 chance that I was the driver.  The claim itself just refers to 'multiple parking charges' and - absent the improperly late PoC - remains 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". This leaves me unable to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued.

7.  To this end, I must draw to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out of the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. I rely upon the 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.

8.  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. (See Exhibit xx-02)

9.    Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit xx-03). Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit xx-04). Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit xx-05

 

Facts and Sequence of events

Etc

Harbmeister

Thanks for the info @Gr1pr

Those amendments are all done now @Coupon-mad - and thanks again for the wise words.

I'll d/l the exhibits and form my pack.

I have the option of email to the court or I can print and deliver them - the green part of me says email.

1505grandad

Just checking  -  is this true or error c & p?:-

"34.  In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. There are two main issues that render this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:

The signage in this case required customers to enter their vehicle registration number at a kiosk inside the store. Unfortunately, this kiosk was inaccessible to me as the store was closed, rendering compliance impossible.  I also wish to highlight the presence of a sign in the parking area that mentioned clamping. 

Umkomaas

Harbmeister said:

Thanks for the info @Gr1pr

Those amendments are all done now @Coupon-mad - and thanks again for the wise words.

I'll d/l the exhibits and form my pack.

I have the option of email to the court or I can print and deliver them - the green part of me says email.

Email is the way to go - unless there is a local court instruction that only x pages (often 50, but not universal) can be emailed, or a max of x mb (often 10).  If your WS is not overly heavy on photo evidence attachments it will probably be ok, but if you're getting close to the maximums, you might want to call your local court to determine if they have limits. 

Don't forget, you must copy your WS to the claimant's solicitors - email to them will be fine. As a precaution, copy the email back to yourself, which will be good evidence that it has been received by the other parties.

Gr1pr

Paper used to be the industry standard and typically it was in use all the time, hence the word bundle, it still happens in some cases

These days electronic methods tend to be preferred in most cases at most courts, subject to size limits imposed on the attachments or PDFs, especially if the court is printing them. So whilst old school paper is still allowed, like with the letters etc , electronic means can usually be used, especially by the large courts , but subject to size limits

Harbmeister

1505grandad said:

Just checking  -  is this true or error c & p?:-

"34.  In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. There are two main issues that render this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:

The signage in this case required customers to enter their vehicle registration number at a kiosk inside the store. Unfortunately, this kiosk was inaccessible to me as the store was closed, rendering compliance impossible.  I also wish to highlight the presence of a sign in the parking area that mentioned clamping. 

Hi @1@1505grandad,

Good spot I haven't altered this from the exemplar.

On reflection this section is not applicable in its form ... me being i a rush and all.

The signage is clear and the penalty is clear.

I don't quote at all from Beavis?

Coupon-mad

No you don't quote or use the whole Beavis case!  You don't even need to link to it because if's so well known.

DO NOT SAY THIS:

"The signage is clear and the penalty is clear."

No it isn't.

Do not remove the section about unclear signs & terms.  Only the bit about the kiosk.

Gr1pr

ECP don't issue penalties, so thats definitely wrong, it issues parking charge notices 

ECP signage is rarely clear, if ever, the default charge of between £85 to £100 is rarely clear, nothing like the Parking Eye sign in the Beavis case 

Harbmeister

SIgn (with top and bottom removed)