HELP ASAP PLS! County Court Claim - Highview Parking PCN - VC5 not updated - no chance to appeal

Coupon-mad

That's a pain...!

UncleThomasCobley

Not_A_Hope said:

@Coupon-mad. The OP has already identified the driver in an email.

In an email my husband wrote to highview and nexus, he identified himself as the driver to try and explain the situation

That's as maybe. However, we are dealing with intellectually malnourished scammers. As they have not defined who they are making the claim against as "driver or keeper", they cannot then turn around and say that they knew who was driving all along because of information received before the claim was filed.

If they were sure they knew the identity of the driver then they were obliged to put that in the PoC as just "the driver".

Not_A_Hope

If they were sure they knew the identity of the driver then they were obliged to put that in the PoC as just "the driver".

Most POC are a cut and paste mess including this one. There is no doubt CEL v Chan applies but if the driver has been identified I see no point in trying to hide behind POFA in the defence which I think was what the OP was asking about.

UncleThomasCobley

I agree that CEL v Chan should get this thrown out at allocation stage. Then again, it is a DCB Legal filed claim so a discontinuation is secondary option and in this case with PoFA/signage etc. being the final fall-back option.

bexr100

So. Strategy:

- Identify self as keeper and driver (given that we have done this in an email already - right?)

- Highlight CEL v Chan at top and argue for case to be dismissed.

- Witness statement: Although do not know particulars of claim, it says  Terms of Contract' breached. Signage says:  "If you remain on site. 2 hours maximum stay. Customer car park only. No return within one hour." On day in question defendant did not remain on site for over 2 hours, 10 minutes (inc grace period allowed by BPA). Defendant  went to browse shops, left to attend other business, reentered and bought items in retails park, with bank statement to prove patronage. No return within 1 hour as assumed to be following the 2 hour maximum stay."

- Leave rest of template as is.

- Don't include PoFA

?

bexr100

OR OPTION 2

- Identify self as keeper

- Highlight CEL v Chan at top and argue for case to be dismissed.

1.The Defendant received the claim xxx from the CCBC on xxx

2.Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3.This claim appears to be a parking charge following a breach of contract

4. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim are unclear on whether the Defendant was the driver or was the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.

5.It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of Vehicle xxxx is reg

6.The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess The Defendant's position with regards the claim.

7.The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimant provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.

15.In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.

16.It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Le_Kirk

As the POC on the claim form are sparse, just use the CEL v Chan defence that you can find by following the links in the template defence or via the NEWBIE sticky by @KeithP in an earlier post.  Do not do the claimant's job for them by adding anything that is not in the claim form POC.

Coupon-mad

I don't understand the dilemma.  You just need to use the Template Defence, which already shows in a link where to slot in Chan and the wording to use.

bexr100

Ok - apologies. I think I am just looking at everyones comments and getting confused with possible options re POFA and mentioning Double dipping at this stage. So we've added in names and claim number at the top, only admitted being the keeper (didn't add in driver) and added the two Cel v Chan paragraps, then left the rest of the template alone as such.

Is that it? Now we just sign and follow instructions for sending off?

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 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

 

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.

5. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

etc etc....

Le_Kirk

Don't forget to embed the pictures of the cases you are talking about as per the thread by @hharry100. You don't "send off" your defence but submit it by email as per the instructions in the defence template.