County Court Claim form for Parking by DCB Legal

dineshgarg58

Hi All, 

I received a PCN by Met Parking 4 years back, had a Popla appeal as well. 
Its was in leisure center for staying 20mins more than allowed 4 hours parking. 

Particulars of Claim
1. D is indebted to the c for parking charge issued to vehicle at address. The PCN was issued on private land manged by c. The vehicle was parked on breach of the terms on C's signs(the contract). The driver agreed to pay with in 28 days but didn't. D is liable as driver or keeper. Despite requests PCN is outstanding. The contract entitles C to damages.
Claims £170 PCN, 8% interest, Costs and Court fee TOTAL 314.48

I have gone through AOS and will reply as per forum instructions after 5th day. 

I have also Prepared my Defence using Forum template by just adding 2 and 3 paragraph.

also I am not sure if I need to write any of the below points as well
1. How 20mins extra is breach of contract and any loss to the claimant
2. There is no option to pay for extra time you spend in the car park. As its a leisure center with different amenities, quite easily anyone can forgot the time spend specially when there is no reminder or a way to remember when you enter the free car park. 
3. PCN was issued based on ANPR entry and exit time. 

please please help if this is correct. Do I need to add anything else in any of the paragraphs. 

Note: I have not edited any existing paragraph of template, just added 2 and 3. 

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

XXXPARKING SERVICES LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

 XXXXXX XXX                                                                              

 (Defendant)

_________________

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').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

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 but does not know who was driving on an unremarkable day 4 years 2 months ago due to other people being insured to (and regularly using) the vehicle. 

 
3. The Defendant believes the alleged carpark is leisure center with Cinema, Shopping area and restaurants with 4 hours of free parking. 

The Defendant has visited this area before, but it was years before and the Defendant cannot remember if there was any paying machine to pay for any extra time, but as the Defendant does not have an original PCN or NTK the Defendant does not know how to answer the claim of the breach.

  

UncleThomasCobley

Which solicitors are they using? If it's DCBLegal, you must include the CEL v Chan transcript as paras #2 and #3 and then keep everything else but renumber.

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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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]

dineshgarg58

Yes they are using DCBLegal. I will add these 2 points on the top of 2 and 3 I wrote earlier

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Don't you already have a thread about this MET parking incident?

dineshgarg58

Hi @KeithP
Issue date is 23 OCT 2023

I am not sure about MET parking incident thread as it is not showing in my Threads

KeithP

dineshgarg58 said:

Hi @KeithP
Issue date is 23 OCT 2023

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd October, you have until Monday 13th November to file an Acknowledgment of Service but don't do that before 28th October. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 27th November 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over four 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

dineshgarg58 said:

I am not sure about MET parking incident thread as it is not showing in my Threads

This thread... CST LAW Letter 

dineshgarg58

Thanks @KeithP and @UncleThomasCobley

Below is how my defence looks now

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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 but does not know who was driving on an unremarkable day over 4 years ago due to other people being insured to (and regularly using) the vehicle. 

5.      Defendant acknowledge that the location in question is recognized as a local retail/leisure park which various insured family drivers (including myself) have visited frequently with this vehicle. Defendant unable to confirm or deny parking there on the specific day in question and deny liability as keeper.

6.     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:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

Coupon-mad

I'd change this:

 "an unremarkable day 4 years 2 months ago"

to

an unremarkable day over 4 years ago

And remove paragraph 5 (no need to guess what it's about) and replace it instead with the words about two transcripts that you will find when you search the forum for:

Gargan Anthony Smith 

dineshgarg58

Coupon-mad said:

I'd change this:

 "an unremarkable day 4 years 2 months ago"

to

an unremarkable day over 4 years ago

And remove paragraph 5 (no need to guess what it's about) and replace it instead with the words about two transcripts that you will find when you search the forum for:

Gargan Anthony Smith 

Thanks , I have edited above point 5 as per your comments. Forum template is used 6 point onwards. 

Coupon-mad

Yes but template defence with CEL v Chan added as the Template tells everyone to do?

I also said "remove para 5" but you say you have edited it?

dineshgarg58

Coupon-mad said:

Yes but template defence with CEL v Chan added as the Template tells everyone to do?

I also said "remove para 5" but you say you have edited it?

Apologies for my lack of knowledge and understanding on legal matters. 

I have created below defence based on comments, also added transcripts from Gargan Anthony Smith case 
ClaimFormParkingDefenceDK - Google Docs