Defence helped needed - Received a LOC from Civil National Business Court
Comments
-
I would add that the Defendant is a Blue Badge holder. Just because that lets her expand on that later in the WS.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad said:I would add that the Defendant is a Blue Badge holder. Just because that lets her expand on that later in the WS.0
-
Passenger. I thought she was the Defendant.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
It's good that you've cured your previously persistent habit of stating that the Defendant parked when the Defendant didn't park - but now you are unnecessarily proposing to dob in the Defendant's son! If the Defendant wasn't the driver, just say that the Defendant was not the driver. And if it was a passenger rather than the Defendant or the driver that held a blue badge, just say that a passenger held a disabled blue badge and that the driver was therefore entitled to park in a disabled space.1
-
I'm getting conflicting info here. It's not easy navigating this minefield of legal stuff. From the other posts I thought because form is generic and makes no mention of what the breach was (not displaying a BB), I thought assumed I was not to mention it either. As I'm giving them unnecessary ammunition.0
-
I didn't say talk about whether it was displayed or not. I just said mention that the passenger that day is elderly and a Blue Badge holder. You need to set that basic scene of facts.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD2 -
ok here's an updated statement:4. On the day in question, the driver parked the vehicle in a designated bay outside B&Q. The driver was with an elderly passenger, who is a blue badge holder. The passenger has a long-term leg injury and therefore had the lawful and rightful entitlement to utilise the parking bay in question. Upon returning to the vehicle, the driver noticed the enforcement officer near the vehicle. At no point did the officer make any attempt to warn the driver of any breach incurred. The accusation from the Claimant alleges that the Defendant was in breach of the terms and conditions, yet still makes no attempt to state the breach itself nor present any clear evidence demonstrating what the alleged breach was.0
-
Upon returning to the vehicle, the driver noticed an employee or 'self-ticketer' of the parking firm near the vehicle. At no point did they make any attempt to warn the driver of any breach allegation and no parking charge notice was affixed to the vehicle. No consumer notice was served on the day. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the notes made/uploaded by the ticketer and the Defendant expects that person to attend any hearing to be questioned as a witness. Importantly, the employee saw the disabled passenger prior to PCN issuance, could see her mobility needs yet still uploaded their predatory photos of the car (which must have been already taken) for a 'bounty' payment from this Claimant. The Defendant avers that the actions of the Claimant constituted direct discrimination (defined in the Equality Act 2010) and that the Claimant remained liable at all times for the conduct of their employee or registered 'self-ticketer'.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD3 -
Thanks a lot for adding the additional info for me. Here's my updated defence in full:
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.
5. On the day in question, the driver parked the vehicle in a designated bay outside B&Q. The driver was with an elderly passenger, who is a blue badge holder. The passenger has a long-term leg injury and therefore had the lawful and rightful entitlement to utilise the parking bay in question.
6. Upon returning to the vehicle, the driver noticed an employee or 'self-ticketer' of the parking firm near the vehicle. At no point did they make any attempt to warn the driver of any breach allegation and no parking charge notice was affixed to the vehicle. No consumer notice was served on the day. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the notes made/uploaded by the ticketer and the Defendant expects that person to attend any hearing to be questioned as a witness. Importantly, the employee saw the disabled passenger prior to PCN issuance, could see her mobility needs yet still uploaded their predatory photos of the car (which must have been already taken) for a 'bounty' payment from this Claimant. The Defendant avers that the actions of the Claimant were direct discrimination (defined in the Equality Act 2010) and that the Claimant remained liable at all times for the conduct of their employee or registered 'self-ticketer'. Till now, the Claimant is yet to present clear evidence of the alleged breach in question.
7. 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.
8. 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.
The only bit i've added is what's in bold. From 8. onwards it's the same as the original template. Am I good to go?
0 -
I don't think you need the last two words on the end of that sentence you have added. 'alleged breach in question' is a bit over the top - either 'alleged breach' or 'breach in question' - I prefer the former.2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.4K Spending & Discounts
- 241K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.7K Life & Family
- 254.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards