Registered Users Only on PRIVATE LAND

UserD

Fruitcake said:

UserD said:

@fruitcake - Thanks , I did get a photo ,but do i add that on with my defence claim form ? i can add the photo to this message if you like ,it does have the road name on it though ?

Nothing should be added to the defence. Photos and other evidence goes with the witness statement much later in the proceedings.

@Fruitcake
What about the Transcript for the other case ,that's stays in the defence correct ?

1505grandad

"UKXX

(Claimant)"

Just checking  -  you will of course put the full name of the claimant as stated on the claim form. 

Coupon-mad

I didn't say to remove that heading.

My advice was to copy the exact paragraph order (with the 4 Chan images embedded exactly where shown) as seen in that defence. You are now further away from the version we'd expect you to be finalising.

Fruitcake

UserD said:

Fruitcake said:

UserD said:

@fruitcake - Thanks , I did get a photo ,but do i add that on with my defence claim form ? i can add the photo to this message if you like ,it does have the road name on it though ?

Nothing should be added to the defence. Photos and other evidence goes with the witness statement much later in the proceedings.

@Fruitcake
What about the Transcript for the other case ,that's stays in the defence correct ?

Yes, everything else from the template stays in the defence. 

UserD

1505grandad said:

"UKXX

(Claimant)"

Just checking  -  you will of course put the full name of the claimant as stated on the claim form. 

Yes , i just did not want the full name in case someone complained. but thanks

KeithP

UserD said:

1505grandad said:

"UKXX

(Claimant)"

Just checking  -  you will of course put the full name of the claimant as stated on the claim form. 

Yes , i just did not want the full name in case someone complained. but thanks

But at the top of the first picture in the first post you put on this thread we can all see...

     

Coupon-mad

And the acronym isn't the company name on the claim form.  We aren't just saying remove the 'xx' we are saying it must be their full name Ltd

UserD

Coupon-mad said:

I didn't say to remove that heading.

My advice was to copy the exact paragraph order (with the 4 Chan images embedded exactly where shown) as seen in that defence. You are now further away from the version we'd expect you to be finalising.

@Coupon-mad -   Thanks , i think i have it now,

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

UKPC

(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)The driver went to pick his daughter up as his daughter was visiting a person that is living in the block of flats. The driver did not park and also did not get out his vehicle and left the estate as soon as his daughter was in the car.In the Jopson v Homeguard, case number B9GF0A9E, the judge stated that collecting or delivering (of goods or people) is not parking.

 

b)The driver did not see the terms of the contract at the entrance of the estate as the main sign refers to the terms being inside the estate and when the driver was picking his daughter up ,did not see any terms displayed there either.When the gate is closed the terms terms are also not visible . Photo of sign and Sign with closed gate can be furnished. 

 

c)Furthermore ,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.

FULL IMAGES OF CEL vs CHAN -Transcript of proceedings

 

4. 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.

KeithP

Sorry to be mentioning it once more, but you must replace UKPC in that document with UK Parking Control Ltd.

Coupon-mad

What's para 3 doing in between the Chan paragraphs?

Just copy the same paragraph order as seen in the hharry defence. You'll end up with over 30 paragraphs, of course, asit is based on the usual template but with 4 transcript pages embedded..