Gladstones Claim Form

Coupon-mad

Given the usual words about CEL v Chan takes up more than one paragraph and should be a Preliminary matter from para 2 onwards (with the image of the transcript after that), how come your facts are para 3 and where has the Template's usual para 2 gone?

GeorgeFormby

I too have a PCN from PCM at the exact same spot.

The image you showed of signage earlier (PCMs image) is outside the gym I think, not adjacent to co-op. Depending on where you actually parked up, there is a mish-mash of signage outside the co-op itself which could be to your benefit? Perhaps an expert will know.

That sign above could also be classed as forbidding signage?

I complained to MP, Ringleys and Weston Homes but got nowhere with any of them.

I have lots of signage photographs if needed of the site.

GeorgeFormby

Signage outside co-op itself. Three different signs in a few sq. Metres.

Entrance signage too. Has been facing away from traffic for over 6 months.

GeorgeFormby

The entrance sign at bottom (low level, facing away from entrance)

paynele47

KeithP said:

I would remove one iteration of the word 'briefly' from your paragraph 3 and remove entirely the sentence starting "Having visited...".

Thanks Keith

paynele47

UncleThomasCobley said:

None of that is the template defence. Where is the CEL v Chan judgment and embedded transcript?

Ive just posted particluars of my defence, because I could not paste the whole thing.

paynele47

GeorgeFormby said:

Signage outside co-op itself. Three different signs in a few sq. Metres.

Entrance signage too. Has been facing away from traffic for over 6 months.

Hello George,

Small world!! LOL

Please let me know where youre at with it. Just ignore the PCN until you get a Letter Before Claim. They will send threatening letters.

GeorgeFormby

paynele47 said:

GeorgeFormby said:

Signage outside co-op itself. Three different signs in a few sq. Metres.

Entrance signage too. Has been facing away from traffic for over 6 months.

Hello George,

Small world!! LOL

Please let me know where youre at with it. Just ignore the PCN until you get a Letter Before Claim. They will send threatening letters.

I had my LBC about 6 months ago. They've not followed up with a claim as yet.

paynele47

So is this correct 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').

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 and driver.

 

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

CHAN v CEL embeded transcript here 

 

5. The Defendant is a resident, living at the estate where the Claimant performs its parking enforcement activities. The vehicle xxx was parked outside the Co-Op market shop whilst the defendant briefly bought some shopping and was only gone five minutes.

Having visited the site, the Defendant, found one small sign from the Claimants Company, which is unnoticeable whilst entering and exiting the land due to unclear and small fonts and sign size.

6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. No contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

8. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

9.  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.

 

10. 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

Coupon-mad

6 needs moving up to become 4 where it will all flow better.

Para 5 isn't needed as it's repetition; it's not an alternative point.  You already state that the signs are 'unnoticeable whilst entering and exiting the land due to unclear and small fonts and sign size' AND you have para 6 moving up to be para 4 (and it's all about signs) so that is sufficient.

Then re-number the whole lot down to paragraph 30-something, because you have two paragraph 3s in this draft.