HELP re: decision to appeal full or partial EURO Car parks fine Claim Form

Bellatrix42

Hello forum,

So will start off by saying I have read all the newbies threads and am aware what I need to do moving forward (got the templates thankyou) and am planning on completing the AOS form later (I have registered with MCOL).
BUT.....I'm a bit undecided as to whether to defend all or partially.... hear me out please.
Claim form issue date 4th Jan
Claim form received 9th Jan

This relates to a parking charge I received in 2022 after parking in a Euro managed car park. I was visiting a shop. I paid for a ticket for 30 minutes (which cost me 50p) and displayed in my window.
Whilst in the shop an elderly lady took poorly and I helped to care for her until her family arrived and further medical assistance. I am a registered nurse and due to my professional registration I am expected to help members of the public if they are unwell. 
I returned to my car and left- not thinking anymore of the day.
A while later I received a fine for £60 stating I had not paid the correct amount. The cameras clocked me leaving a whole 12 minutes later than expected (42 mins in total parked). 
I appealed the decision online and stated facts about me helping the poorly lady and gave reference to my professional code of conduct (even linking the document and highlighting the section stating I should help members of the public). I went as far to include my professional registration pin number and link to the NMC website so they could check my registration. I even offered to pay the extra 30p for an hours parking.

They rejected my appeal by email notification.

I then did nothing (hindsight is wonderful) and felt very aggrieved that my act of good will and a whole 12 mins late could result in such a fine (had gone up to £100 by this stage).......life took over and I kind of forgot about it.

Over the last 2 years I have received 1 threatening letter until now.

My dilemma is......should I partially appeal and offer to pay the original £60 fine (if they would agree) as technically I did stay past the allotted time or do I try and defend the whole case/amount?

The claim form (picture attached) particulars of claim doesn't even give details of the dates/location etc and looks like wording comes to an abrupt end.....

Any tips before I make a final decision?


Thankyou 

Le_Kirk

You have left  the password showing on the N1 claim form!  You want to defend ALL of the claim.

KeithP

Bellatrix42 said:

Claim form issue date 4th Jan
Claim form received 9th Jan

Any tips before I make a final decision?

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th January, you have until Tuesday 23rd January to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread. You will see that that guidance suggests that you Defend All of the claim.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 6th February 2024 to file your Defence.

That's almost four 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

Not_A_Hope

The Particulars of the Claim do not state which of the Terms or Conditions they allege you broke. You should therefore use the hharry defence shown in the template defence thread which includes the recent Chan case. This should result in the claim being thrown out by the court

Not_A_Hope

The claim form (picture attached) particulars of claim doesn't even give details of the dates/location etc and looks like wording comes to an abrupt end.....

Unless they have included separate detailed particulars they are complete nonsense. Multiple PCNs, potentially several sites, no dates!!!!  Complete garbage that will be laughed out of court

Bellatrix42

Thanks all so far for your comments. To clarify I haven’t (yet) received any more particulars of the claim.
with regards to my defence, should I mention any of the details listed in my original post about why I was over my time? Or just stick with the hhary defence? TQ 

Coupon-mad

It's not a fine and you DO NOT make a partial admission!  Clearly, if the POC don't mention 'overstay' then you do not talk about that in your defence.

Not_A_Hope

To clarify I haven’t (yet) received any more particulars of the claim.

There won’t be any. Just a lazy cut and paste POC. Saw those identical words on another thread yesterday.

You can mention what you were doing there and remember helping an old lady but save any details for your witness statement should it be necessary. Definitely do not infer anything about an alleged overstay. 

If by chance the claim is not thrown out at defence stage you can then also refer in your WS to the case law of Jopson v Homeguard where your emergency assistance would be classified as a ‘small vicissitude’. 

Bellatrix42

Thanks @Coupon-mad
I have completed my AOS today and have started my defence. First draft below for review if you are able to have a look 
Presumably from point 6 I will use all the remaining template unchanged (paragraphs 4-30- I will re-number them accordingly). I have used HHary case and added some personalised defence (Admittedly not much as there are NO details of the breech in the POC). Can I also clarify if I receive any further POC this must be within 14 days of the date of claim or date I receive it? If the first then they have until 18th Jan to send them.

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 facts 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 appears 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 drive

3. 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.

4. 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. 

5. The Defendant vaguely remembers parking in a Euro managed car park a few years back to complete some shopping in a nearby Poundstretcher. The defendant is unable to recall the exact date and this is not stated in the Particulars of Claim. The defendant purchased a ticket which was displayed on her car windscreen. The defendant is unable to recall the exact amount but believes it was 50p. The Defendant returned to her vehicle a short while later after completing her shopping and exited the car park. The defendant has not parked in this car park again. The defendant to her knowledge has not parked in any other euro car park, including other locations since.

6. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where she had parked her vehicle, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorists.

7.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

Bellatrix42

Sorry from point 7! 

Castle

How do you know that you were the driver since there are no locations and no dates in the POC.