Claim Form received from CP Plus Group Nexus & DCB Legal

Coupon-mad

Do you live in Scotland?

This is important (below). This needs building on as your defence. Getting petrol is not parking time in the 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.

NorthofEngland99

Hi Coupon-mad,
no a valid question, I live in England, but I had been working up in Stirling that week and its a 6 hour drive without any  regular breaks, so a long drive home. 
I needed a longer break by the time I reached this motorway services, as it was at least 6 hours into the journey.
I awoke from my power nap to see a queue had formed for fuel which extended into the car park, I could see that the queue was moving extremely slowly through the car park, so I had to join the queue, unfortunately this delayed me exiting the car park in a timely manner, hence this situation.
But just to clarify, I wasn't queuing for fuel just trying to leave the car park at the motorway services.
Kind Regards.

Coupon-mad

OK so start like this - you realise you are meant to embed the CEL v Chan transcript images? - then the rest of the Template Defence to the end:

_________________

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. 

 

{CEL v Chan transcript images go here.

Embedded pictures - a readable version}

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.  It is denied that the vehicle 'remained parked on private property in breach' of whatever 'terms & conditions' this Claimant has plucked out of thin air, but not bothered to specify in this claim. The Defendant had driven from Stirling in Scotland and needed a break at this motorway services, as it was at least 6 hours into the journey.

6.  This coincided with the height of the September 2021 fuel crisis and this motorway services had fuel at its petrol station.  By the time the Defendant was ready to drive out of the site (after having parked and used the facility for under 2 hours) there was a large queue for fuel, which extended into the motorway services car park. The very slow-moving queue for fuel delayed every vehicle from leaving and prevented the Defendant's timely departure along the slip road and back out to the Motorway. However, this was in moving traffic and was not part of the 'parking period' as defined by the Government's incoming Statutory Code of Practice (known by this industry for over two years now) which says: "2.24 'parking period' (definition) : - the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired [...] This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land."

7.  The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and...

etc.  (re-number it to suit).

NorthofEngland99

Dear Coupon-mad,
thank you, I misunderstood, I thought that this was his follow-up indicating the response he had received.
I shall now include.
Thank you for the re-write of the defence statement it is very appreciated, I will amend & post.
Kind Regards

NorthofEngland99

Dear Coupon-mad,
as suggested here the amendments, thank you again:-

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd

(Claimant) 

            Defendant name here         

 (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. 

Transcript of proceedings for Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan 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. It is denied that the vehicle 'remained parked on private property in breach' of whatever 'terms & conditions' this Claimant has plucked out of thin air, but not bothered to specify in this claim. The Defendant had driven from Stirling in Scotland and needed a break at this motorway services, as it was at least 6 hours into the journey.

 

6. This coincided with the height of the September 2021 fuel crisis and this motorway services had fuel at its petrol station.  By the time the Defendant was ready to drive out of the site (after having parked and used the facility for under 2 hours) there was a large queue for fuel, which extended into the motorway services car park. The very slow-moving queue for fuel delayed every vehicle from leaving and prevented the Defendant's timely departure along the slip road and back out to the Motorway. However, this was in moving traffic and was not part of the 'parking period' as defined by the Government's incoming Statutory Code of Practice (known by this industry for over two years now) which says: "2.24 'parking period' (definition) : - the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired [...] This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land."

7. Onwards re-numbered and inserted here.

Le_Kirk

You might want to remove "can''t be changed to driver now" from the defendant name.

NorthofEngland99

Thank you Le_Kirk, much appreciated.
Kind Regards

Coupon-mad

Why is 'and driver' in bold? I removed that!

NorthofEngland99

Dear Coupon-mad, thank you, understood I shall amend.
I then follow these 12 steps as below, and at this stage I am currently completing steps 1 to 6 inclusive, If I am understanding the process correctly ? I can add an electronic signature to the pdf.
Thank you in advance.
Kind Regards.

THE FIRST 12 STEPS:

1. Print your Defence if you are physically signing it.
   
2. Sign it and date it.
   
3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf, OR if you have no access to a scanner/printer then put an electronic signature in.
   
4. Send your signed & dated pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk but due to the CCBC's dysfunctional systems, only do this during working hours (a weekday) and you MUST get an acknowledgement straight back or it is NOT submitted.
5. Just put the claim number (check it very carefully) and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'URGENT RE CLAIM XXXXXXXX - Please find my Defence attached.
6. IMPORTANT - MAKE SURE YOU GET AN EMAIL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BACK FROM THE CCBC!   After filing your Defence, there is more to do.
7. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire and the usual intimidating template letter saying they 'intend to proceed'. Nothing of interest there. Just file it.  YOU MAY HAVE TO WAIT TWO MONTHS OR SO FOR THE NEXT STEP TO HAPPEN:
8. Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CCBC, or download one from the internet - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track and then complete it as described by bargepole in his 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585#Comment_64350585
9. The completed DQ should be returned by email to the CCBC to the same address and in the same way as your Defence was filed earlier.  
   
10. Send a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant (or their solicitor if they are using one).  Their postal address is on your Claim Form but you can find an email for them by searching this forum, or Google it, because a DQ sent by email is OK and then you know/can prove it's been sent.   
11. DO NOT USE RECORDED (OR SPECIAL) DELIVERY FOR ANYTHING TO A PARKING FIRM OR THEIR SOLICITOR.   DO NOT EXPECT ROGUE FIRMS TO SIGN FOR YOUR LETTERS.  IF THEY DON'T, ALL YOU HAVE IS PROOF OF NON-DELIVERY, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU NEED!
12. Will you have to attend a hearing? Yes - unless the claim is struck out or the PPC discontinues (very common with DCB Legal!).   Will that hearing be at Northampton?  NO!  That's just a central starting point for claims.  If you are an individual, you get the choose your local court, and telephone or video hearings are becoming common.  Face to face hearings are better though; it's easier to follow the visual cues from the Judge who allow for Defendants being scared and unused to the situation.  You do NOT want your case 'heard on the papers' (absolutely no).  You want a hearing and you can claim your costs if you win, and you risk nothing (no CCJ, no huge costs) by defending, because if you were among the handful who report a loss here you'd have 30 days to pay and it would be less than on the claim form (£175 - £200 total).

NorthofEngland99

Dear Coupon-mad,

I have a question please if  I may please ?

I have now received a letter from DCB Legal informing me that they wish to proceed with the claim and an offer to settle beforehand which I shall duly ignore and a copy of their completed DQN180 form.

I have also received a letter from HM Courts & Tribunals Service acknowledging receipt of my defence along with a Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track (N149A) form.

Just to clarify, do I

option 1 fill out this document (N149A) as well as completing my own DQN180 form or

option 2 do I just download and complete my own N180 and email to CCBC following Bargepole's explanation in 

Step 8 then complete it as described by bargepole in his 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES

From reading the covering notes sent with the N149A form option 2 appears to be the appropriate course of action.

Thank you in advance.

Kind Regards