Help with defence for Parking claim vs CEL - Butterfly Walk Car Park
I have drafted my defence in response to a MCOL from Civil Enforcement Ltd using the information from this forum
I am hoping that I can get some advice before I submit it.
I was the driver and I did park but did not leave the vehicle. I did not see the signs that they are referring to.
I appealed to POPLA back in Nov 2022 and they produced an authority document. To this, I raised the following points:
The confirmation of authority document provided have the following irregularities:
I also raised that:
Photographic evidence is inadequate, as does not show location of signs in relation to map provided or any prospective drivers. It is evident from the photographs provided that the signs are illegible to prospective drivers.
Needless to say my appeal was unsuccessful.
Here is part of my defence statement that slightly differs from the template:
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. The Claimant, Civil Enforcement Limited should be fully aware of this because of there own recent judgement. 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 judgement transcript inserted here..
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. The Defendant vaguely remembers that on the day in question he had gone to meet a friend in the car park who was on their lunch break. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where he had parked his 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 defendant did not leave the vehicle however that being said, the signage was not suitable to alert a motorists.
6. 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.
7. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that......................................
I have tried to highlight that the claimant is the same claimant in the Judge March transcript however, I ave not changed the template in relation to the Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR.. Should I highlight what I said in my POPLA appeal?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
- All Categories
- 341.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.1K Spending & Discounts
- 233.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 605.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 172.4K Life & Family
- 246.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards