Parking court claim

UncleThomasCobley

There should be a bold sub-heading for the "preliminary matter". Also, you are missing the first page of the transcript. As per in this case:

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

Goodprof

Oh yes I see, sorry. Is it better now?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: ***

Between

NATIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT LIMITED

(Claimant)

- and -

***

(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').

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]

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.

Coupon-mad

Your para 5 is still using really confusing and ungrammatical sentences. This in particular is bad English (sorry):

"...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."

Please use my words instead of that.

 I re-wrote that section for you and all you then needed to do was use my words but just change the sentence where I wrongly said there was no windscreen PCN.

Also you clearly don't need this because it's in para 6 so delete all this:

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. 

Le_Kirk

Take this out of your paragraph 3: -

[Embed images of the transcript here]

Goodprof

Coupon-mad said:

Please use my words instead of that.

 I re-wrote that section for you and all you then needed to do was use my words but just change the sentence where I wrongly said there was no windscreen PCN.

I can find only where you tell me to change the end half.

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.

Sorry just can't understand how can I adapt it when actually there was obligation to display a permit and there was a windscreen PCN, you write the opposite there.

Goodprof

Is it better? Should I change the first part somehow?

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. The windscreen PCN has been placed on the defendant’s car as a result.

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.

Goodprof

Le_Kirk said:

Take this out of your paragraph 3: -

[Embed images of the transcript here]

Done, thanks

Coupon-mad

And instead you've embedded the Chan transcript? Good.

I'd just change this:

The windscreen PCN been placed on the defendant’s car as a result.

to this:

To the Defendant's shock, a windscreen PCN was placed on the car, yet no prominent signs/terms were seen before parking and it is unclear what the allegation is, and what 'relevant obligation' was supposedly breached.

Goodprof

Coupon-mad said:

And instead you've embedded the Chan transcript? Good.

I'd just change this:

The windscreen PCN been placed on the defendant’s car as a result.

to this:

To the Defendant's shock, a windscreen PCN was placed on the car, yet no prominent signs/terms were seen before parking and it is unclear what the allegation is, and what 'relevant obligation' was supposedly breached.

Thanks alot.

So here it is. Anything else should be changed?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxx

Between

NATIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT LIMITED

(Claimant)

- and -

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').

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 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. To the Defendant's shock, a windscreen PCN was placed on the car, yet no prominent signs/terms were seen before parking and it is unclear what the allegation is, and what 'relevant obligation' was supposedly breached.

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

Coupon-mad

Yes that'll do.

Sign & date it and email it to the CNBC on a working day next week, after reading the first 12 steps in the first post of the Template defence thread, because to keep us sane, we try to avoid questions about the next form/stage...thanks!

See you at Witness Statement stage in 2024.