CP PLUS LTD T/A GROUPNEXUS - DCB Legal PCN - Claim Form

Moonington

Defence so far - any advice welcomed :

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

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 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. 

<<Transcript from Civil Enforcement Limited V Chan inserted 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.  As various people have access to the car it cannot be confirmed if the registered keeper was the driver at the time. 

5. The signage at this car park is inadequate. There are no signs at the entrance to the lower car park, therefore contravening the British Parking Association Code of Practice 19.2 & 19.3 - Entrance signs. 

6. The defendant did not receive a Notice to Keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking contravention.

***********Standard defence statement folows, eg:

7. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

........................................

Moonington

Fruitcake said:

The McD's car park is on the lower level and is nearer/next to Surtees Road, so I would at least include that point.

Any idea how best to word this?  Something along the lines of....

'It is unclear where the alleged parking offence took place, due to the ambiguity of the car park description given in the Particulars of Claim.  Surtees Lower car park could relate to the car park next to McDonalds, or the carprk next to ASDA.  It is uncler which car park the claimant is referring to.'

Coupon-mad

Yes that all looks fine.

Fruitcake

I would add that for the NTK to be PoFA compliant and capable of holding the keeper liable, it must state the relevant land where the alleged event took place. Since there are several car parks at the material location, at least two of which are on a "lower level," the claimant has failed to adequately identify the location where the alleged breach took place.

Add in the relevant paragraph(s) from the PoFA 2012 at the salient points.

Where you mention ASDA and McD's, I would add that they are each operated by two completely different parking companies.