Another one bites the dust 25/03/2025 -UKPC in house

Tima

Hi everyone,

I'm here to ask for advice for my OH. He got a PCN in March from Asda store and tried to appeal, stating that he was the driver( I know), and they obviously rejected the appeal. He then decided to ignore the numerous threatening letters that followed, as advised by "a friend" who advised they wouldn't take him to court(face palms) . I happened to see this one, and the county court stamp caught my attention even though he thought it was another tactic to get him to pay.  I had tried to write to asda; they sent me in circles. I also emailed the landowners, and they also replied, saying they don't mange the land and that it belongs to asda. So I have spent the best part of my evening trying to get a draft defence. I have already submitted an acknowledgement of service. I would like some advice on if my draft makes any sense,  
P.S It's a UKPC car park 
Thank you in advance

Defence

 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').

1. 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

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

The 4 images of Chan case

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 vaguely remembers on the day in question he had gone shopping with his family and had parked in the family bay near the store. The only available space was the last space which has parking bollards on the right. In other to be able to open the car door properly, the defendant parked slightly with his wheels slightly outside the marked bay.  

6. The Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage, which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The faded signage was not suitable for alerting motorists.

7.  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.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
Upon what date was an Acknowledgment of Service done?

I'm sure you don't need reminding, but it is important that everything is done in the name of the named Defendant.

Tima

Issue date was 23/11/23 and the acknowledgement of service was today- 28/11/23. Yes, thanks for the reminder. 

KeithP

Tima said:

Issue date was 23/11/23 and the acknowledgement of service was today- 28/11/23. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Thursday 28th December 2023 to file a 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

Coupon-mad

And please show:

- two pics - both sides - of the Notice to Keeper from March (if he has it still) but including all dates showing.  Cover his VRM and data.

- a close up of the Particulars of Claim (cover your VRM) & is it signed off by a solicitor firm - who? Or is it UKPC litigating in-house?

1505grandad

The para numbered "1" should not be there  -  number 4 covers it so unnumbered para should be number "1".

Not_A_Hope

In other to be able to open the car door properly, the defendant parked slightly with his wheels slightly outside the marked bay

Typo - should be ‘In order’ I think.

I personally wouldn’t admit to parking slightly outside the marked bay. That is doing the PPCs job for them. Choose some other wording that doesn’t admit failure to comply with potential T&Cs.

Le_Kirk

If you are using CEL  v Chan, I assume the POC on the claim form are vague or sparse, in which case you are giving WAY too much info in the defence.

Tima

Coupon-mad said:

And please show:

- two pics - both sides - of the Notice to Keeper from March (if he has it still) but including all dates showing.  Cover his VRM and data.

- a close up of the Particulars of Claim (cover your VRM) & is it signed off by a solicitor firm - who? Or is it UKPC litigating in-house?

Please find the photos 

Castle

Another POC "from UKPC" which states that interest has been calculated from a date before the issue of the PCN, in this case, 1 day before the alleged parking event. 

OP- Was the claim signed by a Solicitor?

Not_A_Hope

If you are using CEL  v Chan, I assume the POC on the claim form are vague or sparse, in which case you are giving WAY too much info in the defence.

As Le_Kirk suggests those particulars on the claim form do not specify which T&C they allege you broke so CEL v Chan court case applies and your defence should not mention the alleged contravention.

In my opinion if a judge looked at the photo of the lack of room in the car parking space and proximity to bollards he might well laugh their claim out of court.