IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Help with defence for Parking claim vs CEL - Butterfly Walk Car Park

Hi all 

I have drafted my defence in response to a MCOL from Civil Enforcement Ltd using the information from this forum :smile:

I am hoping that I can get some advice before I submit it.

Context:
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:

 

1) It is dated 01.03.2017 however, there is no expiry date.
2) It is not clear who the signatory is.
3) The address differs from the address on the PCN. The PCN displays ‘Butterfly Walk’ however the document provided displays ‘Butterwalk’
4) Civil Enforcement have stated that they are managing the car park on behalf of the Landowner. The landowner is listed as ABC Parking Solutions Ltd on the document provided however, ABC Parking Solutions are not the landowner.
5) In  addition to this Butterfly Walk Car Park does not exist in the HM Land registry register at all
6) ABC Parking solutions does not exist as an entity on companies house register.

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.

Comments

  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 37,030
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

    Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
    If so, upon what date did you do so?
    Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.
  • Bobby2k2
    Bobby2k2 Posts: 107
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite


    KeithP said:
    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

    Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
    If so, upon what date did you do so?
    Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.
    Hello

    Yes I have filed an Acknowledgment of Service.

    This is my Claim history:

    A claim was issued against you on 17/01/2024

    Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 23/01/2024 at 00:46:34

    Your acknowledgment of service was received on 23/01/2024 at 08:05:47


  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 128,993
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Hello again @Bobby2k2
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 37,030
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Bobby2k2 said:
    KeithP said:
    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

    Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
    If so, upon what date did you do so?
    Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.
    Hello

    Yes I have filed an Acknowledgment of Service.

    This is my Claim history:

    A claim was issued against you on 17/01/2024

    Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 23/01/2024 at 00:46:34

    Your acknowledgment of service was received on 23/01/2024 at 08:05:47


    With a Claim Issue Date of 17th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th February 2024 to file your Defence.

    That's just one week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.
    To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.
    Don't miss the deadline 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'.
  • Bobby2k2
    Bobby2k2 Posts: 107
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 12 February at 3:39PM
    Hello again @Bobby2k2
    Hey again 😊

    KeithP said:
    Bobby2k2 said:
    KeithP said:
    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

    Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
    If so, upon what date did you do so?
    Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.
    Hello

    Yes I have filed an Acknowledgment of Service.

    This is my Claim history:

    A claim was issued against you on 17/01/2024

    Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 23/01/2024 at 00:46:34

    Your acknowledgment of service was received on 23/01/2024 at 08:05:47


    With a Claim Issue Date of 17th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th February 2024 to file your Defence.

    That's just one week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.
    To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.
    Don't miss the deadline 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'.
    I have included my draft in my original post, excluding most parts of the main template.

    Do you think I need to anything else?

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 128,993
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Civil Enforcement have stated that they are managing the car park on behalf of the Landowner. The landowner is listed as ABC Parking Solutions Ltd on the document provided however, ABC Parking Solutions are not the landowner. 
    We've had threads about this place with photos. I recall that the signs look like ABC are offering the contract, not CEL and I remember a case last year with a defence already written about ABC, referencing Fairlie v Fenton.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • 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