Claim Form received from CP Plus Group Nexus & DCB Legal

Debszzzz2

NorthofEngland99 said:
Hi, so I completed the acknowledgement to service on the 10/2/2024 using the drop box information from the 2nd post

Below is the original PCN/NTK with all of personal information redacted

You haven't answered the question of whether you have, at any point, identified as the the driver. Do CP Plus know the drivers name and address? 

NorthofEngland99

Hi,
thank you for your assistance.
I did not appeal I just sent an SAR to see what information they had on me.
Hope that clarifies ?
Kind regards

Coupon-mad

Yep - see my advice then!

NorthofEngland99

Hi Coupon-mad & Debszzzz2,
thank you both for your advise, it is very much appreciated.
As below, this is the template I understand I should use for my defence.
In paragraph 2, hypothetically speaking if  the driver is known should that be stated as it does indicate that I believe.
 I also have a question about paragraph 3 please if I may ? obviously I need to explain my own personal defence in that section, but I must admit I'm unsure if and why I need to re-number the paragraphs ?
I then copy and paste all other paragraphs as shown is that correct ?

Thank you in advance. Best Regards

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(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').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

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

^EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH If you were driving, add 'and driver' after the word 'keeper'.

OR if the Defendant doesn't know who was driving, say that.

OR deny being the driver if you weren't: ONLY IF TRUE!

3. [EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...NB: defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me']. 

Say why the car was there - if you know - but don't answer to details that are not stated in the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM. If you didn't get any letters or it was years ago & you can't recall if you were driving, say that.  ONLY IF TRUE.
Most claims do not even state the alleged breach. If yours doesn't state what the breach was, add the paragraphs and judgments seen in the defence by @hharry100  here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80343627/#Comment_80343627

and change the paragraph numbering.

If this was a residential site where the driver lives/was a permitted visitor, statethose parking rights.

Older residential defence examples are in the NEWBIES thread.  CRIB SOME PARAGRAPHS BUT USE THIS TEMPLATE AS YOUR BASE.

We recommend you continue with this wording  (yes, all of it. Paragraphs suitably re-numbered to allow for the above).

So here in paragraph 2 & 3. I delete all of the above text and I explain my defence.

My claim form does state that I’m indebted to the claimant for a parking charge.

But I’m unsure if & why I need to change the paragraph numbering if that is indeed necessary ? could you explain please ? apologies for not understanding this aspect.

As below, I copy and paste exactly as stated for all paragraphs, which I understand.

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....

Coupon-mad

Why aren't you using the CEL v Chan version as my reply advised?   Instead you've crossed out the bit linking to it!

NorthofEngland99

Dear Coupon-mad,
sincere apologies, I believe I understand now, use this template ''CEL V Chan'' as you've explained.
I did state that I was cranially challenged at times !  Thank you for being patient 

So this template as below

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(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 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 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.

^EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH If you were driving, add 'and driver' after the word 'keeper'.

OR if the Defendant doesn't know who was driving, say that.

OR deny being the driver if you weren't: ONLY IF TRUE!

 

5. [EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...NB: defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me']. 

Say why the car was there - if you know - but don't answer to details that are not stated in the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM. If you didn't get any letters or it was years ago & you can't recall if you were driving, say that.  ONLY IF TRUE.

If this was a residential site where the driver lives/was a permitted visitor, state those parking rights.

Older residential defence examples are in the NEWBIES thread.  CRIB SOME PARAGRAPHS BUT THOSE EXAMPLES ARE OLD SO DO NOT USE THEM IN FULL. USE THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE.

The rest of the template with paragraphs numbered by you, becomes #6 onwards.

NOTHING IS TO BE DELETED FROM THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE

So paragraph 4 (Original template) becomes paragraph 6 onwards.
''The claimant will concede ect.. and then as explained the rest of the template
Thank you again. I can see now that you explained this in an earlier post as did Debszzzz2 & Fruitcake !
Shaking my head at myself now !!!
Best Regards

Coupon-mad

Yes but we don't want to see our work. We want to see yours.

NorthofEngland99

''Yes but we don't want to see our work. We want to see yours.''

Dear Coupon-mad,
thank you for you continued advice, it is very much appreciated.
As below is my draft defence in relation to the Claim form received.
Please advise if this is concise enough or too rambling.
Thank you in advance.
Kind Regards.

''IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(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 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 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 had driven from Stirling in Scotland and whilst during the journey the defendant had taken regular breaks it became necessary to take a longer break at this motorway services to prevent driver fatigue, due to the length of the journey.
This journey coincided with the height of the September 2021 fuel crisis, this motorway services had fuel at its petrol station, when the defendant arrived there was no queue for the petrol station, however by the time the defendant resumed their journey there was a large queue for fuel, which extended into the motorway services car park, the defendant was resting during this period and hence was not aware that a large queue had now extended into the motorway services car park.

The queue for fuel prevented the timely departure from the car park, however the defendant did not realise that this had caused the defendant to overstay the free parking period.

6. 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.

7. 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.

ect.

Anto_28

i'd scrub this line out:

The defendant did not realise that private parking fees could now be pursued by third party companies as prior to 2012 this was not the case.

(it reads like an admission you ignored the PCN believing you could not be pursued)

NorthofEngland99

Dear Anto_28,
I did think that after I'd uploaded, but only just realised that I can edit submitted posts.
duly noted and edited, thank you