Parking fine - Help with Defence needed please.

SidneyArthur

OK, so -
I have used the - (Post 2) Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited 31st July 2023.

I have added -
* "The Defendants" facts as to why the vehicle was in the carpark.
* The 2 paragraphs from hharry - "The claim should be struck out"
* A full copy of the CEL v Chan E7GM9W44 case.

I have left the rest of the template unchanged.

Questions -
1) I am going to add - As suggested in @andyl3004's & @xavian1234 - more examples of Claims being "Struck Out" with exactly the same layout as @xavian1234 did. Is that a good idea?

2) Shall I remove para - 18. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance if seeking 'keeper liability' - as I have admitted to being the driver?
3) I take it that I do not provide images of every case mentioned in the template? I leave those sections as they are...
4) Are the links in the template suitable to include as they are? Nothing extra required with this?

If you wise people agree with the above, then I have a Defence to send!!

Coupon-mad

1) I am going to add - As suggested in @andyl3004's & @xavian1234 - more examples of Claims being "Struck Out" with exactly the same layout as @xavian1234 did. Is that a good idea?

Yes, they are good cases to add but it will be so long they are probably best added as a URL link ( @Le_Kirk posted a single PDF link to them last month). We have two more now, from Basildon and York, I think, if you fancy searching the forum for those too!

2) Shall I remove para - 18. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance if seeking 'keeper liability' - as I have admitted to being the driver?

Just remove that final sentence only.


3) I take it that I do not provide images of every case mentioned in the template? I leave those sections as they are...

Leave it. No need for images of PE v Beavis!


4) Are the links in the template suitable to include as they are? Nothing extra required with this?

They are fine as they are.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

@Le_Kirk posted a single PDF link to them last month. We have two more now, from Basildon and York, I think, if you fancy searching the forum for those too!

Still waiting for a clean, less redacted version to be posted by @LekkerManLekker (despite sending a PM) so I can add York and Basildon to the link.

SidneyArthur

OK, I have a defence, can I post a copy so it can be checked please?

KeithP

Please only show us those paragraphs of your Defence that you have changed.
We don't need to see the whole lot and wonder if you have changed anything in it.

SidneyArthur

To recap - I have used the - (Post 2 - Coupon-mad) Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited 31st July 2023.

It is completely unchanged except for -
* "The Defendants" facts as to why the vehicle was in the carpark.
* The 2 paragraphs from hharry - "The claim should be struck out".
* A full copy of the CEL v Chan E7GM9W44 case.
* A dropbox URL link from @Le_Kirk detailing "Struck out" cases with an accompanying paragraph.
* Re-numbering.

                                                               

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 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. 

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR CIVIL ENFORECEMENT LTD v CHAN INCLUDED HERE.

4. Within the following URL link, please find copies of more numerous examples of recent judgments to “strike out claims” on the very same basis as Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44), made by District Judges in various County Courts (DJ Humphreys at Norwich 27th September 2023, DJ Falvey at Peterborough, 27th October 2023, DJ Robinson at Wakefield, 8th September 2023, DJ Sprague at Luton, date not provided, DJ McMurtie at Manchester, August 2023) 

URL Link - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y1lda2mnse2rj4fumto6g/Judgments-2-edited.pdf?rlkey=ox55qt4mxist62zmupz4mh71f&dl=0

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant’s knowledge and honest beliefs, 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, based on 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 acknowledged that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver. 

 6. The defendant was in the busy car park attempting to find an appropriate space for the large vehicle being driven. The carpark in question is very small with tight turns, making it slow and difficult to manoeuvre such a vehicle, particularly as it was almost full. After not finding an appropriately sized space, the defendant exited the carpark after approximately five minutes and parked elsewhere. During this period the defendant was unable to read any signage from inside the vehicle.

SidneyArthur

More Questions!!
Does my recollection of events at the carpark give too much information away?
I have not included the term "Abuse of Process" anywhere in the defence. Do I need to?
Is the Dropbox URL link ok?

Coupon-mad

All looks great. Just add this to your para 6:

Thus, any purported parking contract was void for impossibility and was rejected by the conduct of the Defendant, who left without parking.

KeithP

SidneyArthur said:

Is the Dropbox URL link ok?

I would suggest not.

You are introducing evidence and evidence must be on a 'durable medium'.

What that means is that you have no way of altering the evidence once it has been sent to the court and the claimant.

Clearly in the situation you are proposing, you could send a link to a file to the court and claimant and then alter the linked file. A link to a website that you can alter is not a durable medium.
A link to a website where you cannot alter the content is ok - like perhaps a link to a government website.

To get round that, perhaps you need to send that file on a memory stick, cd or DVD - something that the sender cannot alter once sent. 

Having said that, I wonder whether it's a good idea to send all that information at this time? 
I realise you are hoping to get the claim struck out and and all those reports of struck out claims are intended to guide the court, but is it not possible that the court might take exception and actually, heaven forbid, strike out the Defence? 

Coupon-mad

Dunno!  Maybe the cases could all be embedded one after, another after the signature and date.  Then saved as a PDF.