Minster Baywatch Claim Form Received

Zach20161

Good afternoon,

I received a claim form from Minster Baywatch LTD, issue date 19th Jan 2024 taking place at York Ultraflex Gym Layerthorpe.

I believe I at least had the right to use the car park for an hour as it was on the property in which I had an appointment booked.

Here's what happened:

• I was booked in for a haircut at the barbers located inside the gym.

• I pulled into the on-site carpark and parked up, absolutely no obvious signs or obvious parking spaces stated, especially on a rainy day which can be seen on the photographs on the original PCN.

• A notice was sent to my old address, which is my parents, my DVLA was still registered here at the time of notice issue, I updated my address details on DVLA around this time but not sure of an exact date.

• I did not visit them for a couple of months in which I then found a PCN and demand notice.

Today my parents address received a claim form under my name. Where do I go from here?

Fruitcake

Plan A is always for the keeper to complain to the landowner and the keeper's MP, and it is never too late to do so.

Check to see if the NTK was or was not PoFA compliant.

Please show us the front of the claim form with the particulars of claim, ensuring that all personal data is redacted.

Get photos of the site and signage, paying particular attention to the names of any other companies on signage such as Bransby Wilson.

Complete the AoS on or shortly after day sixth from the claim form issue date to give you the maximum time to respond with a defence, which you should base on the template defence sticky Announcement.
Use the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in the second post of the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES in conjunction with the twelve step guide from the defence template sticky thread.

Zach20161

Hi @Fruitcake

Thanks for your reply, please see this image of the claim form.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th January, you have until Wednesday 7th February to file an Acknowledgment of Service.  Do not file an Acknowledgment of Service before 24th January, but otherwise 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.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 21st January February 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over 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'.

1505grandad

@KeithP   -  typo  -  "....you have until 4pm on Wednesday 21st January 2024 to file your Defence.

Fruitcake

Good, the PoC are woefully inadequate and fail to state the specific reason for issuing the claim. You should therefore include the findings from the CEL v Chan case where the defendant won for this very reason, along with the whole of the rest of the template defence.

Zach20161

Great, thanks, in regard to the CEL v Chan case where can I grab the findings from? Had a quick google and forum search but couldn't find much other than comments on other posts regarding the use of the case.

KeithP

1505grandad said:

@KeithP   -  typo  -  "....you have until 4pm on Wednesday 21st January 2024 to file your Defence.

Thanks @1505grandad. Now corrected.

Le_Kirk

Zach20161 said:

Great, thanks, in regard to the CEL v Chan case where can I grab the findings from? Had a quick google and forum search but couldn't find much other than comments on other posts regarding the use of the case.

Use the @hharry100 defence which contains the CEL v Chan case

Coupon-mad

Which is why it's in the Template Defence already!

Zach20161

Hi all,

Thank you for the feedback. I will submit the AOS on 25th January and in the meantime try to get images of the parking signs on-site.

I have drafted the below using the defence template and CEL v Chan case as seen on the harry100 defence.

Please let me know what you think.

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. 

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. On the date in question, the Defendant had a legitimate appointment at York Ultraflex Gym Layerthorpe. This appointment necessitated on-site parking, which is a facility presumably provided for the convenience of gym users and visitors. There was no intention of violating any parking rules and the Defendant believed they were in full compliance with the terms of use for the parking facility. If there was a deviation from the standard parking procedures, it was unintentional and may be attributed to a lack of clear signage not helped by the poor weather visibility on that particular day.