Registered Users Only on PRIVATE LAND

UserD

Coupon-mad said:

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..

@Coupon-mad - if you saying that i should only have one line of argument which is the CHan argument then i understand and just take it from that defence ,there was no clear guidance for that point which means i should ignore the other arguments 3.a and 3.b or do you mean i should put 3.a and 3.b elsewhere ? please clarify ?

UserD

KeithP said:

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

Got you ,thank you.

Coupon-mad

UserD said:

Coupon-mad said:

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..

@Coupon-mad - if you saying that i should only have one line of argument which is the CHan argument then i understand and just take it from that defence ,there was no clear guidance for that point which means i should ignore the other arguments 3.a and 3.b or do you mean i should put 3.a and 3.b elsewhere ? please clarify ?

I don't understand your question but just copy the order of paragraphs in the harry one, and your facts come after the Chan images (like his defence shows).

UserD

Coupon-mad said:

UserD said:

Coupon-mad said:

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..

@Coupon-mad - if you saying that i should only have one line of argument which is the CHan argument then i understand and just take it from that defence ,there was no clear guidance for that point which means i should ignore the other arguments 3.a and 3.b or do you mean i should put 3.a and 3.b elsewhere ? please clarify ?

I don't understand your question but just copy the order of paragraphs in the harry one, and your facts come after the Chan images (like his defence shows).

@Coupon-mad -im sure this draft is closer to what was expected and let me know if there are any cases i can mention for points  5.The driver did not see the terms of the contract displayed and  6.Trespass or is it good enough just to mention? Many Thanks

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

UK Parking Control

(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. No breach of contract found

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.

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. 

(Transcript of proceedings of the Chan case under this paragraph)

 

4.The driver did not park

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 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.

5The driver did not see terms of the contract.

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.

6Trespass.

The sign says REGISTERED USERS ONLY, If the driver was not registered then the driver was trespassing and hence a third party cannot charge the driver for trespassing, the landowner would have to lodge a civil legal case If in the alternative it is the claimants case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis . 

7. 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.
8. No 8. Follows the template upto no32. which is
32.  Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."   .

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

"No breach of contract found"

And change this heading:

"4.The driver did not park"

to this:

4.The Defendant did not park in the estate

And change 'the driver' to 'the Defendant' elsewhere too.

Make it clearer in para 5 that you parked outside, not within, and didn't pass a t&cs sign.

Para 4 could be improved by adding the definition of a 'parking period' from the DLUHC's incoming statutory Code of Practice.  It specifically says setting down or picking up a passenger is NOT 'parking'.

Le_Kirk

Remove the "can't be changed to driver now" from defendant named on claim.

1505grandad

Also in the heading the full name of the claimant is required as already advised.

UserD

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this:

"No breach of contract found"

And change this heading:

"4.The driver did not park"

to this:

4.The Defendant did not park in the estate

And change 'the driver' to 'the Defendant' elsewhere too.

Make it clearer in para 5 that you parked outside, not within, and didn't pass a t&cs sign.

Para 4 could be improved by adding the definition of a 'parking period' from the DLUHC's incoming statutory Code of Practice.  It specifically says setting down or picking up a passenger is NOT 'parking'.

 @Coupon-mad -Thank you and have implemented as suggested -

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

UK Parking Control Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (Will add my name before I send it)

 (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 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.

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. 

(transcript of proceedings of the case mentioned above under this paragraph)

 

 

4. The Defendant did not park in the estate

The defendant went to pick his daughter up as his daughter was visiting a person that is living in the block of flats. The defendant did not park and also did not get out his vehicle and left 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.The definition of a 'parking period' from the DLUHC's incoming statutory Code of Practice specifically says setting down or picking up a passenger is NOT 'parking'.

5The defendant did not see terms of the contract displayed.

The defendant 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 defendant was picking his daughter up was parked outside, not within, and didn't pass a t&cs sign.

6Trespass.

The sign says REGISTERED USERS ONLY, If the defendant was not registered then the defendant was trespassing and hence a third party cannot charge the defendant for trespassing, the landowner would have to lodge a civil legal case If in the alternative it is the claimants case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis.

7. 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.

UserD

Le_Kirk said:

Remove the "can't be changed to driver now" from defendant named on claim.

  @Le_Kirk - I will fill in my full names when i send it as i am aware that we not supposed to state our personal details on the forum but thanks for your comments anyways .

UserD

1505grandad said:

Also in the heading the full name of the claimant is required as already advised.

@1505grandad - Thank you . i have added the ''Ltd'' in the name if that's what you picked up and have made a amendment in the draft above which i just made to coupon-mad .