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

Coupon-mad

That's not the words (and CEL v Chan transcript image) shown in the link in the Template Defence thread, is it?

You do also need to add some vague facts about the car park at least.

bexr100

OK - How about this. I am not sure what else we can say without giving more information than mentioned in the PoC and claiming to be the driver and explaining the double dip. Unless I talk about PCNs going to old address and debt recovery letters received later?

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').

2.  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.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.  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.

4.   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

 

5.  Looking at signage from Treliske Retail Park, the Defendant understands that it is a Highview-controlled, ANPR-operated, car park, operating under the BPA Code Of Conduct. The car park, which is for customers only, offers a free 2 hour maximum stay, whereby you may not then return within one hour. You can only park in marked bays and not on any lines. Disabled users must display a valid badge.

6.  In relation to these rules, The Defendant denies any breach of contract.

7.  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. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an  etc etc

Coupon-mad

Swap 2 and 7.

Remove 5 completely. Don't list their terms!

Just have one facts paragraph that says this is a local retail park visited often by the family, and the date is unremarkable.  However, the D denies any breach and thinks this is a time when the car visited twice (explain re the attempt to park at the Hospital in between and state that he parked in a different space on his return. These were separate periods of parking and he did not breach any terms).

bexr100

OK 2 and 7 swapped. 5 and previous 6 removed. Now reads:

.....

5. The Particulars Of Claim note that car xx (to which Defendant was the Registered Keeper on the date in question) has been issued a Parking Charge for parking at xxx.  The Defendant admits that this car park serves a shopping facility which is frequented by the Defendants family. The date, xx, noted here is unremarkable. Whilst the Defendant denies any breach of contract, the Defendant believes, however, that said date may coincide with a day on which the car was parked twice, on separate occasions at the same car park. The car was parked, then left the car park for some time, and upon return parked in another space.  The Defendant believes these were two separate periods of parking within a time frame of 2 hours. The Defendant holds bank statements to prove patronage at xxx, a shop located within the retail park, on the day in question.

6.  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.

7. 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:

.......

Is that OK?

I have now managed to get clear pics of actual signage at retail park.....

Coupon-mad

Very good.

That can be signed & dated, saved as a PDF and emailed to the CBNC. Then it's done (first stage at least).

 

Please re-read the first post of the Template Defence which lists the first 12 steps over the first 3 months.

We try to avoid questions about the N180 form which is covered in both the Template Defence and the NEWBIES thread.

bexr100

Oh my goodness. Got there in the end. Thank you SO much everyone and especially @Coupon-mad who has helped so much on the  final stretch. Will be sure to update. Should i keep this thread open to update on?

bexr100

And yes will re read now. Will be posting a few of the other cases he has on his plate now. (All went to old address and are quite far down the line )

bexr100

Alos just wondering is it wise to somehow hide this post now until the case is over? Do the legal teams look at all these posts do you reckon? I've tried to hide all our details but I'm sure someone could put two and two together if they were looking ?

Umkomaas

bexr100 said:

Alos just wondering is it wise to somehow hide this post now until the case is over? Do the legal teams look at all these posts do you reckon? I've tried to hide all our details but I'm sure someone could put two and two together if they were looking ?

DCB Legal are issuing around 100,000 claims on behalf of PPCs per year. There will be no prospect of them 'putting two and two together', theirs is a conveyor belt operation. Even if they did read the thread, how would them reading it (and joining the dots ....) make any difference? They'll be reading your defence soon enough when the CNBC forwards it to them in the next few days.

Coupon-mad

bexr100 said:

Alos just wondering is it wise to somehow hide this post now until the case is over? Do the legal teams look at all these posts do you reckon? I've tried to hide all our details but I'm sure someone could put two and two together if they were looking ?

Doesn't matter. They'll discontinue when they see your WS bundle.