Gladstones Claim Form

UncleThomasCobley

You have amended the CEL v Chan paragraphs with an added para in the middle. Also, your para #2 kind of negates the CEL v Chan as everything is repeating what is already stated. Paras #7, #8 and #9 all state the same.

KISS and just use the template as advised with just a simple adjustment to explain why you were at the location. The "Preliminary matter" should be inserted after para #1 with the CEL v Chan paras and the embedded transcript. Everything else should follow after that as per the template defence.

I have no idea why you are mixing and matching different bits all over the place.

just use the template defence as shown in the second post of the Template defence thread here:  https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76880595/#Comment_76880595

Insert after para #1 (before the "Facts as known by the defendant") the CEL v Chan "Preliminary matter":

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]

Then the following as described in the template:

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.

^EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH If you were driving, add 'and driver' after the word 'keeper'.

OR if the Defendant doesn't know who was driving, say that.

OR deny being the driver if you weren't: ONLY IF TRUE!

5. [EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...NB: defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me']. 

Say why the car was there - if you know - but don't answer to details that are not stated in the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM. If you didn't get any letters or it was years ago & you can't recall if you were driving, say that.  ONLY IF TRUE.

If this was a residential site where the driver lives/was a permitted visitor, state those parking rights.

Older residential defence examples are in the NEWBIES thread.  CRIB SOME PARAGRAPHS BUT USE THIS TEMPLATE AS YOUR BASE.

We recommend you continue with this wording  (yes, all of it. Paragraphs suitably re-numbered to allow for the above).

Then the rest of the template renumbering the paras from #6 onwards.

paynele47

UncleThomasCobley said:

You have amended the CEL v Chan paragraphs with an added para in the middle. Also, your para #2 kind of negates the CEL v Chan as everything is repeating what is already stated. Paras #7, #8 and #9 all state the same.

KISS and just use the template as advised with just a simple adjustment to explain why you were at the location. The "Preliminary matter" should be inserted after para #1 with the CEL v Chan paras and the embedded transcript. Everything else should follow after that as per the template defence.

I have no idea why you are mixing and matching different bits all over the place.

just use the template defence as shown in the second post of the Template defence thread here:  https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76880595/#Comment_76880595

Insert after para #1 (before the "Facts as known by the defendant") the CEL v Chan "Preliminary matter":

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]

Then the following as described in the template:

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.

^EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH If you were driving, add 'and driver' after the word 'keeper'.

OR if the Defendant doesn't know who was driving, say that.

OR deny being the driver if you weren't: ONLY IF TRUE!

5. [EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...NB: defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me']. 

Say why the car was there - if you know - but don't answer to details that are not stated in the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM. If you didn't get any letters or it was years ago & you can't recall if you were driving, say that.  ONLY IF TRUE.

If this was a residential site where the driver lives/was a permitted visitor, state those parking rights.

Older residential defence examples are in the NEWBIES thread.  CRIB SOME PARAGRAPHS BUT USE THIS TEMPLATE AS YOUR BASE.

We recommend you continue with this wording  (yes, all of it. Paragraphs suitably re-numbered to allow for the above).

Then the rest of the template renumbering the paras from #6 onwards.

Thanks Uncle. 

I am more confused now with all the conflicting information.

So taking your comments on board, I have now re-ordered it.

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

4. 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.

5.  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.

6. 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.

7. 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 can create a legally binding contract.

8. 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.

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:

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

UncleThomasCobley

That's better. In the original, have you embedded the images of the CEL v Chan transcript?

I'm assuming you have included the rest of the template defence and made sure that all subsequent paras are renumbered accordingly.

You need to study the defence and understand it. As long as the "Preliminary matter" is considered first, before any "facts known to the defendant", the should, hopefully, get it thrown out without having to go through all the rest of the defence.

You must still understand it though, just in case it actually gets to a hearing (unlikely but possible).

Coupon-mad

Why is para 5 still in weird underlined text and you haven't got the CEL v Chan transcript?

It is hard to add more because all you are being advised to do is copy the hharry link that I clearly give in the Template Defence (then just add one little bit of specific facts).

I've tried but I don't understand the confusion because the Template Defence walks you through every paragraph already.

UncleThomasCobley

Here is a link to how it should be formatted:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80387013/#Comment_80387013

paynele47

So should I file now or wait until 14th?

paynele47

Defence now filed 

Wish me luck.

Coupon-mad

Very good. First stage is done.

Defence is not your only job.

 

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.

paynele47

Have now received the Directions Questionnaire from Gladstones saying they are proceeding.  

Le_Kirk

paynele47 said:

Have now received the Directions Questionnaire from Gladstones saying they are proceeding.  

Assuming they have also told CNBC/CCBC you can expect your own blank N180 (I was going to write "soon" but given how far behind CNBC are - who knows!