MET Parking Claim - Help reviewing defence

hyper0009

Hi everyone,

Firstly, I'd like to thank the community for all their hard work collecting this material and making it available for public use. 

I received a claim from Met Parking and have drafted a defence using the template. I've only changed two sections and would like some feedback:

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 and driver.
3. On the date of the disputed breach, the defendant parked at Great Cambridge Retail Park to purchase doughnuts from Krispy Kreme, which he did successfully for a total amount of £1.50. According to the signs, the defendant was allowed to park as a customer of the retail park.

Do I need to add anything else? 

JerryJ64

hyper0009 said:

Do I need to add anything else? 

That depends on what exactly the PoC state on the claim. What is the "issue date" of your claim. On what date did you acknowledge service of the claim? Can you evidence that you were a paying customer? Just stating that you were, may not be enough.

The MET parking signs on GSV are from 2022. they state that 80 minutes free parking. What terms are MET alleging you breached? The entrance sign fails the BPA CoP as it is not obvious or conspicuous and almost impossible to read whilst standing underneath it, never mind whilst driving a car.

hyper0009

JerryJ64 said:

hyper0009 said:

Do I need to add anything else? 

That depends on what exactly the PoC state on the claim. What is the "issue date" of your claim. On what date did you acknowledge service of the claim? Can you evidence that you were a paying customer? Just stating that you were, may not be enough.

The MET parking signs on GSV are from 2022. they state that 80 minutes free parking. What terms are MET alleging you breached? The entrance sign fails the BPA CoP as it is not obvious or conspicuous and almost impossible to read whilst standing underneath it, never mind whilst driving a car.

The issue date is the 7th of December. I acknowledged the claim today, December 19th. I can evidence the transaction through my bank statement. Here's the POC:

The claim is for unpaid parking and collection charges for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant. The defendant contravened the claimant's displayed terms and conditions in the car. The breach occurred on 2021-09-24 and for which Parking Charge Notices were issued.

The claimant claims:

1. the sum of £170 for monies relating to the parking charges as as set out above
2. Intrest in the sum of £28 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984
3. Interest hereon in at the same rate until judgment or sooner payment at the daily rate of £0.04

JerryJ64

Having acknowledged service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th January to file your defence.

With those PoC, you should use the template defence with the added "Preliminary matter" of the CEL v Chan transcript. The PoC are 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”.

Coupon-mad

hyper0009 said:

JerryJ64 said:

hyper0009 said:

Do I need to add anything else? 

That depends on what exactly the PoC state on the claim. What is the "issue date" of your claim. On what date did you acknowledge service of the claim? Can you evidence that you were a paying customer? Just stating that you were, may not be enough.

The MET parking signs on GSV are from 2022. they state that 80 minutes free parking. What terms are MET alleging you breached? The entrance sign fails the BPA CoP as it is not obvious or conspicuous and almost impossible to read whilst standing underneath it, never mind whilst driving a car.

The issue date is the 7th of December. I acknowledged the claim today, December 19th. I can evidence the transaction through my bank statement. Here's the POC:

The claim is for unpaid parking and collection charges for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant. The defendant contravened the claimant's displayed terms and conditions in the car. The breach occurred on 2021-09-24 and for which Parking Charge Notices were issued.

The claimant claims:

1. the sum of £170 for monies relating to the parking charges as as set out above
2. Intrest in the sum of £28 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984
3. Interest hereon in at the same rate until judgment or sooner payment at the daily rate of £0.04

That can't be the actual POC because it would state the location. Please don't paraphrase the POC.  It's important to show us verbatim (minus your car VRM). 

KeithP

hyper0009 said:
The issue date is the 7th of December. I acknowledged the claim today, December 19th.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th January 2024 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three 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'.

hyper0009

Thanks for the advice. Below is an image of the PoC and my updated defence. I've added the preliminary matter to the defence, including the CEL v Chan transcript.

I would appreciate a review before submission @KeithP@Coupon-mad@JerryJ64. 

Thanks in advance, and Merry Christmas. 

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

                                                              --  Images of 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, prioritizing the safety of all road users, chose to park in the car park to mitigate the well-documented risks of late-night driving, such as increased fatigue, which can lead to serious accidents. The Defendant proceeded to purchase a drink from the Krispy Kreme store in the retail park for a total amount of £1.50. The Defendant asserts that the parking terms signage was inadequately illuminated, making it impossible to discern the terms and conditions of use during night-time hours. Furthermore, the defendant contends that the placement of vegetation within the car park obscured the signage. The Defendant also raises concerns about the legibility of the text on these signs, arguing that the small font size was particularly challenging to read, making it difficult to understand the car park’s rules and regulations. Lastly, the defendant argues that the quantity of signs was insufficient to effectively communicate the parking terms and conditions. 

hyper0009

I included the defence as a spoiler in my last post by mistake, here it is in case you missed it:


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

                                                              --  Images of 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, prioritizing the safety of all road users, chose to park in the car park to mitigate the well-documented risks of late-night driving, such as increased fatigue, which can lead to serious accidents. The Defendant proceeded to purchase a drink from the Krispy Kreme store in the retail park for a total amount of £1.50. The Defendant asserts that the parking terms signage was inadequately illuminated, making it impossible to discern the terms and conditions of use during night-time hours. Furthermore, the defendant contends that the placement of vegetation within the car park obscured the signage. The Defendant also raises concerns about the legibility of the text on these signs, arguing that the small font size was particularly challenging to read, making it difficult to understand the car park’s rules and regulations. Lastly, the defendant argues that the quantity of signs was insufficient to effectively communicate the parking terms and conditions. 

Coupon-mad

I'd replace all this:

"Furthermore, the defendant contends that the placement of vegetation within the car park obscured the signage. The Defendant also raises concerns about the legibility of the text on these signs, arguing that the small font size was particularly challenging to read, making it difficult to understand the car park’s rules and regulations. Lastly, the defendant argues that the quantity of signs was insufficient to effectively communicate the parking terms and conditions."

with this:

No parking contract was seen, let alone agreed.  Not that the POC specify any allegation of breach of a term.