Help needed regarding claim forms (N1SDT) from UKCPM/Gladstone solicitors

ScienceXplorer

'underground allocated parking'*

Coupon-mad

You aren't attaching evidence yet anyway but should mention the property advert, and the fact that the space is allocated & marked exclusively for your flat.

ScienceXplorer

Coupon-mad. I have amended para.6 based on your advice. Could you please have a look.

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. 

(4 images of CEL v CHAN transcript)

 

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.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

5.      The underground car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to residents. Entry to the underground parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

 

6.      It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances, as the tenancy agreement (signed between the Defendant and landlord/leaseholder of [address]) does not require any parking permit to be displayed, but the Defendant has a grant to park a vehicle that flows from the rights enjoyed by the flat leaseholder (the landlord). The space in which the vehicle was parked is a marked bay (with flat number) and is exclusively for parking of the resident of the flat. The allocated parking space came with the flat, and this was stated in the advertisement to rent out the flat. Hence the Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the agreement between the Defendant and leaseholder, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms.

 

7.      The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. A copy of the tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court.

 

8.      The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

9.      Accordingly, it is denied that:
(i).  there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
(ii). the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
(iii).  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages or indemnity costs if applicable' as vaguely stated in the original template POC.

The rest of the template (paras 4-30 in the original template) have been re-numbered, and will be included.

Coupon-mad

Very good but I reckon it would read better to remove this from 6 and tack it on 5 instead:

The allocated parking space came with the flat, and this was stated in the advertisement to rent out the flat. Hence the Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the agreement between the Defendant and leaseholder, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. 

 

ScienceXplorer

Thanks for this. I have now done as advised. Please let me know if there is anything else you would suggest I amend/include.
-------------------------

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. 

(4 images of CEL v CHAN transcript)

 

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.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

5.      The underground car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to residents. Entry to the underground parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there. The allocated parking space came with the flat, and this was stated in the advertisement to rent out the flat. Hence the Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the agreement between the Defendant and leaseholder, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms.

 

6.      It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances, as the tenancy agreement (signed between the Defendant and landlord/leaseholder of [address]) does not require any parking permit to be displayed, but the Defendant has a grant to park a vehicle that flows from the rights enjoyed by the flat leaseholder (the landlord). The space in which the vehicle was parked is a marked bay (with flat number) and is exclusively for parking of the resident of the flat.

 

7.      The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. A copy of the tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court.

 

8.      The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

9.      Accordingly, it is denied that:
(i).  there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
(ii). the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
(iii).  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages or indemnity costs if applicable' as vaguely stated in the original template POC.

The rest of the template (paras 4-30 in the original template) have been re-numbered, and will be included.

Coupon-mad

The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area,

As I think I said, you don't know that.

ScienceXplorer

Interestingly, I have just received the below letter from the solicitors informing me that the second (duplicate) claim was sent in error and is to be discontinued. I do not see anything on MCOL regarding this claim being discontinued. Will I get a separate confirmation from county court that this claim has been discontinued, or am I supposed to chase anyone regarding to get cofirmation that this claim has been discontinued?

ScienceXplorer

Coupon-mad said:

The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area,

As I think I said, you don't know that.

Apologies, you did point that out. That was left there in error. Removed para. 7 now and put that last sentence (A copy of the tenancy...) at the end of para. 6.
------------------

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. 

(4 images of CEL v CHAN transcript)

 

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.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

5.      The underground car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to residents. Entry to the underground parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there. The allocated parking space came with the flat, and this was stated in the advertisement to rent out the flat. Hence the Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the agreement between the Defendant and leaseholder, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms.

 

6.      It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances, as the tenancy agreement (signed between the Defendant and landlord/leaseholder of [address]) does not require any parking permit to be displayed, but the Defendant has a grant to park a vehicle that flows from the rights enjoyed by the flat leaseholder (the landlord). The space in which the vehicle was parked is a marked bay (with flat number) and is exclusively for parking of the resident of the flat.  A copy of the tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court.

 

7.      The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

8.      Accordingly, it is denied that:
(i).  there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
(ii). the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
(iii).  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages or indemnity costs if applicable' as vaguely stated in the original template POC.

The rest of the template (paras 4-30 in the original template) have been re-numbered, and will be included.

Coupon-mad

That's good.

Send the exact same defence for both (same day) because you can't trust the hopelessly overburdened CNBC to close the second case down efficiently.

ScienceXplorer

Hi, I have now submitted defence for both claims and received acknowledgment for both. I am hoping the confirmation of discontinuation for the second/duplicate claim does come from county court.

Thanks a lot for the immense help. Will keep you updated.