County Court Defense Template section 3

MuddyFunster2

Thanks to the person, or persons who drafted the template for the County Court Defence. 

I'm trying to complete section 3. I've put:

The defendant visited [location] on [date] as a customer of Costa. Due to the position of the vehicles left and right of their vehicle, the defendant parked approximately 150mm over the line to ensure a courteous amount of room between vehicles. Due to the positioning of Claimants Signage and small font used, the Defendant was unaware this was in breach of Terms.

The photo 'evidence' shows only my car outside of the line as the others had left when I returned. 

So I've admitted to being in breach of the Terms?

Coupon-mad

So don't put that.  No need.  Only respond to the POC as they are written which doesn't mention the contravention.

Which PPC?

Which solicitor?

What's the Date of Issue of the Claim Form?

On what date did you do the AOS?

MuddyFunster2

PPC is UK Parking Controll 
Solictior is DCB Legal 
Claim form was issued 28/09
I did the AOS on 02/10

That said, since I posted, I noticed that the claim form doesn't make note of any particular breach, only that I did, so I've switched the to the "Preliminary matter: the claim should be struck out" version and cut down the previous section to "The Defendant vaguely remembers the day in question, she had visited the Costa store and parked in the car park outside the store..." 

Umkomaas

I think you might well get a discontinuation before the claim gets anywhere near court. You must keep going through the whole process and on time, but I guess you won't be meeting a judge!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

UncleThomasCobley

As this is a DCB Legal issued claim, you must add the following as your paras #2 and #3 (including the bold sub-heading) and then renumber all subsequent paras:

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

[Embed images of the transcript here]

KeithP

MuddyFunster2 said:

Claim form was issued 28/09
I did the AOS on 02/10

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 2nd October, you have until 4pm on Monday 30th October 2023 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.
To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.