Defence in court

KeithP

Yes, and having read it, you understand why.   

Coupon-mad

You are advised to use the hharry100 version clearly linked. It is really simple. Then you add your facts under the 4 images. Then the rest of the Template Defence just like I coach you to do in the linked post.

Who are the Claimants? Never heard of 'Parking and Property Solutions (PPS)'.

Vorot

Private parking solutions initially but then it was passed to Gladstone Solicitors who is claimant

Vorot

OK so will move them around 3.3 up rest 1 own

KeithP

Vorot said:

Private parking solutions initially but then it was passed to Gladstone Solicitors who is claimant

Gladstones are not the Claimant.

What exactly is in this box on your Claim Form?...

Coupon-mad

You need to get the Claimant's name right if referring to them in your defence.  And as KeithP says, the C is not Gladstones.

Vorot

Yes you are right claimant is Private parking solutions

Coupon-mad

Which one?   That's still not the full name.

Vorot

Private Parking Solution

(Claimant) 

- and -  

AG                      

 (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  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. 

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. 

4 pictures 

4. The facts known to the Defendant: 

The facts in this defense 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 The defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle involved in the alleged parking events on 04/04/23 and 08/04/23

4.1  Communication with Gladstone solicitors  and Claimant:

The defendant communicated to Claimant that he wasn't not the driver in both instances. Unfortunately, there was no response from Claimant. Subsequently, the case was passed to the Gladstone solicitors. On 23/06, an email was sent stating that the defendant wasn't the driver, and all details were provided earlier. The Gladstone solicitors replied on 01/11 with a request for driver details, which the defendant promptly provided shortly after. Despite this cooperation and the disclosure of the driver's identity, the Claimant has persisted in pursuing the keeper (the defendant), even though they are no longer liable for the charge. The claim against the keeper is, therefore, vexatious and unreasonable. 

4.2   Stopping in Parking Area, Intention to Drive Away, Assisting in Taking Toddlers Downstairs, and Judge's Comments: 

On both days, the driver stopped the car in the parking area to assist in loading the defendant and their toddlers from their home address. As the children needed to be loaded safely, stopping elsewhere on the street was not feasible due to double yellow lines and heavy traffic. The driver briefly stopped by the exit door to the building to facilitate the safe loading of the toddlers into the car. After stopping and loading, the intention was to drive away, and this is precisely what transpired. Additionally, due to a broken lift, it was safer for the driver to come to the flat to assist in taking the two toddlers downstairs. The defendant would like to draw the court's attention to the comments made by the judge in Jopson v Homeguard (case number B9GF0A9E). The judge ruled that dropping off/picking up is not considered parking. This ruling, being part of an appeal case, holds persuasive weight on lower courts. The transcript of this case is available online.

4.3 Intent to Defend: 

The defendant hereby declares their intent to defend this claim based on the above circumstances. The lack of response and opportunity to clarify the situation has impeded a fair resolution.

5. 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:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.6. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

7. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

8. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

 

Vorot

so final version i believe like this after 8 will be all ponts to 31