IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Defence helped needed - Received a LOC from Civil National Business Court

Hello,

I received a claim form from CNBC recently for an alleged offence of parking in a disabled bay without displaying a blue badge. The original claim was from UKPC. I've read the newbies thread and have submitted the AOC form. I've written up a defence using the template and would like some help critiquing it.
  1. The issue date on the claim form is 24/11/23.
  2. The registered keeper is my dad but I was driving that day. As I have already submitted the AOC form, I think it's too late to change now?
  3. I ignored all the letters up until now (bad idea). I did email the landowner a few days ago who said they couldn't do anything and that I should contact UKPC to appeal.
  4. The photos they took of the car doesn't show any evidence of no blue badge on the dashboard. They just show a photo of the front of the car.
Here is my defence of the parts I have edited (paragraph 2 & 3 only). 

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 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 but was not the driver.

3. On the day in question, the Defendant had parked the vehicle outside B&Q within a disabled bay. The Defendants wife who was present at the time, is a blue badge holder. As the holder of the blue badge was present, the Defendant was rightfully and legally entitled to park in the bay. The alleged claim from the claimant suggests no badge was displayed yet no such evidence has be presented that clearly shows no badge on the dashboard.   


Everything beyond this point is exactly as written in the defence template. Could you someone help look over my defence. Thanks in advance.

«134

Comments

  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 37,092
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 10 December 2023 at 5:36PM
    Hello and welcome.

    Are you saying that the Defendant named on the Claim Form is your father?
    Everything, including the Acknowledgment of Service must be done in the name of the named Defendant.
    As an aside, the filing of an Acknowledgment of Service wasn't an opportunity to change the Defendant.

    Why doesn't you proposed Defence assert that a blue badge was displayed?
    Have you seen all the pictures the Claimant has for - the missing blue badge image?

    Was an Acknowledgment of Service filed online as suggested in the second post of the NEWBIES thread?
    If so, upon what date was that done? The MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer.
    However it was filed, for the moment I'll assume that an Acknowledgment of Service was filed sometime after 29th November. Please confirm.

    With a Claim Issue Date of 24th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, the named Defendant has until 4pm on Thursday 28th December 2023 to file his Defence.

    That's over two 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'.

    I'll mention once again... everything must be done in the name of the named Defendant.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,323
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 10 December 2023 at 5:10PM
    Claim issued by UKPC themselves?

    To your Dad?  It's not your defence then, it's his (I hope the AOS was done from his Gateway account not yours?).

    And this is untrue:

    "the Defendant had parked the vehicle".

    No he didn't. Not if you were the driver.

    Show us the bottom half of the claim form, covering the VRM and MCOL password only.  

    And tell us the date of issue on the Claim and the date MCOL History shows an AOS was done, and reassure us this was done in his name, yes?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • KeithP said:
    Hello and welcome.

    Are you saying that the Defendant named on the Claim Form is your father?
    Why doesn't you propose Defence assert that a blue badge was displayed?
    Have you seen all the pictures the Claimant has for - the missing blue badge image?
    Thanks both for the quick response. Yes as he is the registered keeper, all letters came under his name. I forgot to display it, I'll add in that I did display it. I stupidly threw away a lot of the letters they sent as I didn't think it would get this far. I'll try and find if I have one. 

    Was an Acknowledgment of Service filed online as suggested in the second post of the NEWBIES thread?
    If so, upon what date was that done? The MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer.

    Yes I filed the AOC on December 3rd using my fathers name and govt gateway account. I followed the steps highlighted in the newbie thread ( the dropbox link). Can't post the link.

    Claim issued by UKPC themselves?

    To your Dad?  It's not your defence then, it's his (I hope the AOS was done from his Gateway account not yours?).

    And this is untrue:

    "the Defendant had parked the vehicle".

    No he didn't. Not if you were the driver.

    Show us the bottom half of the claim form, covering the VRM and MCOL password only.  

    And tell us the date of issue on the Claim and the date MCOL History shows an AOS was done, and reassure us this was done in his name, yes?

    Yes, claim by UKPC to my Dad. Everything was done in his name and from his Gateway account. For some reason I can't login to the GG account, which is getting me worried but I definitely submitted it on December 3rd. What do I do if I was driving but it's in his name? Here's the claim form. 



  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,323
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Search the forum for:

    UKPC interest day before
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Ok i've had a read of this thread (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6488958/claim-form-asda-car-park-from-ukpc/p2) and have taken some inspiration. Here is my updated defence

    3. On the day in question, the Defendant parked the vehicle in a designated bay. The Defendant's wife, a blue badge holder, was present on the occasion. With the blue badge holder on-site, the Defendant had the lawful and rightful entitlement to utilize the parking bay, duly displaying the blue badge. The claim from the plaintiff alleges that no badge was exhibited, yet there is a lack of presented evidence clearly demonstrating the absence of a badge on the dashboard.is a lack of presented evidence clearly demonstrating the absence of a badge on the dashboard.

    4.  Moreover, the Claimant's incoherent Particulars of Claim seek to impose interest on the entire inflated £170, starting from the day preceding the alleged violation—specifically, the day prior to the parking incident. It is refuted that any amount was owed at that time, let alone before the alleged breach (which is also denied). Even if interest were deemed applicable, it could only commence from the point when a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is considered 'overdue.' Furthermore, the actual parking charge amounted to £60 within the initial 14 days and £100 thereafter (a fact not conceded by the Defendant in any case). Attempting to claim interest under such a flawed premise, dating back to a time before the vehicle was even present and, on an amount not legitimately owed, constitutes sufficient grounds in itself to reject the claim.

    4.1 The claim has been initiated through Money Claims Online, and consequently, it is bound by a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section in the Claim Form. The utilization of generic language has impeded any clarity in the claim. The Defendant believes that the court will concur that a claim presented in such general terms lacks the necessary specifics and should have been appropriately detailed within 14 days, as per 16PD.3. However, no such detailed document has been provided.


    How's this? Shall I remove any reference to the blue badge as the claim form is also vague and doesn't state what the breach is. So shall I also keep it vague?

  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 37,092
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    The last sentence of your paragraph 3 needs some rationalisation.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,323
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 13 December 2023 at 10:43PM
    The claim from the plaintiff alleges that no badge was exhibited
    No it doesn't.  The POC does not state the breach.  You are meant to be using the hharry version linked in the Template Defence.

    And there's no 'plaintiff' in the small claims track.  And you haven't copied the extra paragraph that I advised that poster to add, which was the whole point of the forum search:  to find that extra paragraph to add to the hharry defence for cases where the breach isn't pleaded in the POC.

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Ok I must have missed that, thanks. So i've looked at the Harry template defence and now I have the following:

    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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

    Images of Chan case.

    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 but was not the driver.

    4. On the day in question, the Defendant parked the vehicle in a designated bay outside B&Q. The Defendant had the lawful and rightful entitlement to utilise the parking bay. The accusation from the Claimant alleges that the Defendant was in breach of the terms and conditions, yet makes no attempt to state the breach itself nor present any clear evidence demonstrating what the alleged breach was.

    4.  Moreover, the Claimant's incoherent Particulars of Claim seek to impose interest on the entire inflated £170, starting from the day preceding the alleged violation—specifically, the day prior to the parking incident. It is refuted that any amount was owed at that time, let alone before the alleged breach (which is also denied). Even if interest were deemed applicable, it could only commence from the point when a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is considered 'overdue.' Furthermore, the actual parking charge amounted to £60 within the initial 14 days and £100 thereafter (a fact not conceded by the Defendant in any case). Attempting to claim interest under such a flawed premise, dating back to a time before the vehicle was even present and, on an amount not legitimately owed, constitutes sufficient grounds in itself to reject the claim.

    5.1 The claim has been initiated through Money Claims Online, and consequently, it is bound by a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section in the Claim Form. The usage of generic language has obstructed any clarity in the claim. The Defendant believes that the court will concur that a claim presented in such general terms lacks the necessary specifics and should have been appropriately detailed within 14 days, as per 16PD.3. However, no such detailed document has been provided.

    Paragraph 4 in bold is my bit. I'm not sure what else to state here without diving into specifics. Should I also add these bits below at any point?

    (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon;
    (b) the details of any alleged breach of contract
    (c) how many 'PCNs' are being pursued in this claim, exactly when the alleged conduct occurred (dates and times) and how much each of these charges were;
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,323
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 16 December 2023 at 6:25PM

    "...but was not the driver.

    4. On the day in question, the Defendant parked the vehicle"

    What?

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • "...but was not the driver.

    4. On the day in question, the Defendant parked the vehicle"

    What?

    Edited, since I'm the driver and my mum the Blue badge holder, do I mention she was with me or is that another unnecessary detail I can leave out? 

    4. On the day in question, the Defendants son parked the vehicle in a designated bay outside B&Q. The Defendants son had the lawful and rightful entitlement to utilise the parking bay. The accusation from the Claimant alleges that the Defendant was in breach of the terms and conditions, yet makes no attempt to state the breach itself nor present any clear evidence demonstrating what the alleged breach was.

Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.5K Life & Family
  • 246.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards