Parking court claim

Goodprof

Coupon-mad said:

We help people loads of times where English isn't their first language. Don't worry!

Thank you

Coupon-mad said:

Do you mean the school owner told you what to put as an appeal, several months ago?
That's not a problem.

An appeal a few months ago, does not affect a good defence now.

Or do you mean that the school owner texted you this month what to put as a court defence?  Please clarify?

We want you to use our Template Defence.

The PCN appeal, what we did last year. Not a court defence. Im just worried they have got some more information that they should, and some that I gave is not true.

Goodprof

Goodprof said:

I also have the information that the parking rules came into force few days before the incident but can't prove and not sure if it is true. Don't know how to check. That is what the dance school teacher says which is working there for a while and also have received the ticket as I already mentioned

Could it potentially help?

I just can't understand how I can successfully defend when it was my fault I didn't follow their rules. 

Should I explain everything in my defence like I did it here? Even when I give the different information in PCN appeal?

Do you still think I have a good chance to win?

Coupon-mad

Yes you certainly do!  Relax.

Very glad you have not put in a weak defence.

Please urgently tell all the other people with court claims to come here and use the Template Defence.

YOU WILL ALL WIN.

Goodprof

How do you find this as a third paragraph?

The defendants vehicle was parked on the stated parking for 1 hour at *time and date* due to the defendant visiting *school name* school for the class, which located in Moulton Park Business Centre that allows to visitor to park on the stated parking. At the time of the class the school holders have confirmed to the defendant that the vehicle has allowed to be parked and no any actions needed to be done. No any notes or tickets have been given for putting under windscreen. After the parking charge received the school owner has confirmed to the site reception that the defendant visited the site due to a reason, asking the charge to be cancelled. After the cancellation request has been denied the school owner advised defendant to appeal the charge and state again that the defendant was an official visitor to the site and has the rights to park their vehicle. 

Coupon-mad

Change the end half of your para 3. to:

and there was no obligation to display a permit or otherwise 'authorise' the vehicle, which had entered past the secure gates with prior permission. There was no windscreen PCN, just a letter out of the blue, weeks later and it was apparent that predatory surveillance and photos had been taken of the car without agreement.

4. The Defendant made concerted efforts to resolve the dispute. The Claimant did not.  When the Defendant complained and asked for help, the school owner confirmed that the Defendant was authorised to visit the site, stating that there was no justification in pursuing permitted visitors. The landowners required the unwarranted parking charge notice ('PCN')' to be cancelled.  This was outright refused by this Claimant, as was the Defendant's formal appeal, which turns out to have been futile because there was no independent 'appeal'.  It is the Defendant's position that they do not understand why they got a PCN, do not see any cause of action and that there is no overriding legitimate interest to support this punitive charge.

Have you added the CEL V CHAN case as shown in the link to hharry's example (in the Template Defence comments by me)? 

You are meant to copy it.  Then add your facts under that bit.

Goodprof

Coupon-mad said:

Change the end half of your para 3. to:

and there was no obligation to display a permit or otherwise 'authorise' the vehicle, which had entered past the secure gates with prior permission. There was no windscreen PCN, just a letter out of the blue, weeks later and it was apparent that predatory surveillance and photos had been taken of the car without agreement.

It was a windscreen PCN Im affraid.

Coupon-mad said:

Have you added the CEL V CHAN case as shown in the link to hharry's example (in the Template Defence comments by me)? 

You are meant to copy it.  Then add your facts under that bit.

They stated the breach of terms of their "Contract". It says to add those only if there is no any, isn't it?

There is a sign. Everything is bad?

Goodprof

The only I can say about the sign it was on the floor as in my very first post and it was a dark if it does make any sense

UncleThomasCobley

The CEL v Chan argument applies only to the failure of the PoC to state the terms that were breached. Just stating that "Terms were breached" is insufficient. It matters not what they state in the PCN/NtK/LoC etc.

Coupon-mad

No any notes or tickets have been given for putting under windscreen.

Ah, sorry - I misunderstood that to mean 'no PCN was placed on the windscreen'.  Just adapt what I wrote. A tiny change, to make sense for a case where the Defendant found a windscreen PCN.

Of course you use CEL v Chan and the words and full transcript that the Template Defence tells you to add.  

Goodprof

Should it be something like that?

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 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 (transcript below) 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 and driver.

5. The defendant’s vehicle was parked on the stated parking for 1 hour at *time and date* due to the defendant visiting *school name* school for the class, which located in Moulton Park Business Centre that allows to visitor to park on the stated parking. At the time of the class the school holders have confirmed to the defendant that the vehicle has allowed to be parked and no any actions needed to be done. No any notes or tickets have been given for putting under windscreen. After the parking charge received the school owner has confirmed to the site reception that the defendant visited the site due to a reason, asking the charge to be cancelled. After the cancellation request has been denied the school owner advised defendant to appeal the charge and state again that the defendant was an official visitor to the site and has the rights to park their vehicle. 

6. The Defendant made concerted efforts to resolve the dispute. The Claimant did not.  When the Defendant complained and asked for help, the school owner confirmed that the Defendant was authorised to visit the site, stating that there was no justification in pursuing permitted visitors. The landowners required the unwarranted parking charge notice ('PCN')' to be cancelled.  This was outright refused by this Claimant, as was the Defendant's formal appeal, which turns out to have been futile because there was no independent 'appeal'.  It is the Defendant's position that they do not understand why they got a PCN, do not see any cause of action and that there is no overriding legitimate interest to support this punitive charge.

etc