Claim Form - ParkingEye Ltd - DCB Legal Ltd

MagicalOwl12312

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 of the vehicle.

3. 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.

4. 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 and Practice Direction Part 16. 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, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

4 Images of Chan

5. The defendant is an employee at the University Hospital Llandough 4 and attends this destination to attend work. The defendant is able to attend the facility and access free parking due to being an employee and having work commitments at the property.

6. The Defendant would also like to state that the ParkingEye machine that is used to present the car registration was not in use on the 12/10/2022, therefore it was not viable to present this information on site.

7.  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.

this is everything ive added to the template, is this the right info from the harry template? 

Coupon-mad

Looks good.  As long as you then add the rest of the Template Defence (but don't show us!).

nopcns

If the CEL v Chan preliminary matter is used then paras #3 and #4 should be #2 and #3 preceded with a sub-heading "Preliminary matter". Then para #2 in that defence should now be para #4 preceded by another sub-heading titled "The facts as known to the Defendant".

Coupon-mad

Yes, as seen in the link in the Template Defence.

MagicalOwl12312

nopcns said:

If the CEL v Chan preliminary matter is used then paras #3 and #4 should be #2 and #3 preceded with a sub-heading "Preliminary matter". Then para #2 in that defence should now be para #4 preceded by another sub-heading titled "The facts as known to the Defendant".

just to double check before I send this via Email, is this what was meant by the comment?
Also appreciate all responses  

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 and Practice Direction Part 16. 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, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

4 Images of Chan

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 of the vehicle.

5. The defendant is an employee at the University Hospital Llandough 4 and attends this destination to attend work. The defendant is able to attend the facility and access free parking due to being an employee and having work commitments at the property.

6. The Defendant would also like to state that the ParkingEye machine that is used to present the car registration was not in use on the 12/10/2022, therefore it was not viable to present this information on site.

7.  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.

KeithP

The three words 'Images of Chan' in your first paragraph 4 - you have two paras numbered 4 - will of course be replaced by the four images of the CEL v Chan judgment before you file that Defence?

Forgive me if it's obvious and you already have that in hand, but best to be sure. 

nopcns

MagicalOwl12312 said:

just to double check before I send this via Email, is this what was meant by the comment?

Also appreciate all responses  

Yes, that is now correct.

KeithP said:

The three words 'Images of Chan' in your first paragraph 4 - you have two paras numbered 4 - will of course be replaced by the four images of the CEL v Chan judgment before you file that Defence?

Forgive me if it's obvious and you already have that in hand, but best to be sure. 

https://youtu.be/0CmaLgxLDE0?feature=shared

Coupon-mad

MagicalOwl12312 said:

nopcns said:

If the CEL v Chan preliminary matter is used then paras #3 and #4 should be #2 and #3 preceded with a sub-heading "Preliminary matter". Then para #2 in that defence should now be para #4 preceded by another sub-heading titled "The facts as known to the Defendant".

just to double check before I send this via Email, is this what was meant by the comment?
Also appreciate all responses  

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 and Practice Direction Part 16. 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, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

4 Images of Chan

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 of the vehicle.

5. The defendant is an employee at the University Hospital Llandough 4 and attends this destination to attend work. The defendant is able to attend the facility and access free parking due to being an employee and having work commitments at the property.

6. The Defendant would also like to state that the ParkingEye machine that is used to present the car registration was not in use on the 12/10/2022, therefore it was not viable to present this information on site.

7.  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.

Yes, then the rest of the Template Defence re-numbered (losing no paragraphs).

pasta_sauce

Hi MagicalOwl, 

I'm going through a very similar claim with DCB & Parking Eye and work at a hospital in Cardiff too.
Just so you know, I've been advised to change my address of service to somewhere outside of Cardiff (maybe to England) as apparently Cardiff Court are renowned for hearing cases 'on papers' ie. not in person, and siding with the private parking companies. 

MagicalOwl12312

Coupon-mad said:

MagicalOwl12312 said:

nopcns said:

If the CEL v Chan preliminary matter is used then paras #3 and #4 should be #2 and #3 preceded with a sub-heading "Preliminary matter". Then para #2 in that defence should now be para #4 preceded by another sub-heading titled "The facts as known to the Defendant".

just to double check before I send this via Email, is this what was meant by the comment?
Also appreciate all responses  

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 and Practice Direction Part 16. 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, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

4 Images of Chan

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 of the vehicle.

5. The defendant is an employee at the University Hospital Llandough 4 and attends this destination to attend work. The defendant is able to attend the facility and access free parking due to being an employee and having work commitments at the property.

6. The Defendant would also like to state that the ParkingEye machine that is used to present the car registration was not in use on the 12/10/2022, therefore it was not viable to present this information on site.

7.  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.

Yes, then the rest of the Template Defence re-numbered (losing no paragraphs).

Re-numbered the paragraphs and made sure they are all in order.
Is it right that i only need to send the email to : ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk 

i cant find the table of emails.