SUCCESS! BW Legal for PPM

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

He recused himself probably because wof his professional relationship with the claimant 

 Not sure we know who this Claimant firm is!

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

ChirpyChicken said:

He recused himself probably because wof his professional relationship with the claimant 

 Not sure we know who this Claimant firm is!

True but it would be a good reason if he had some kind of relationship with the claimant 

Coupon-mad

Yes - maybe he has shares in the parking firm.

jd576

Success. I won!

I confess to being mildly disappointed that it was because the claim was struck out due to a failure to adhere to Practice Direction 16.7.5, since I think I had a pretty strong case.

I would have ultimately preferred to win on the substance of the defence, since this would have made all enforcement by the firm in the residential area in question open to challenge. But, a win is a win.

Thank you in particular to @Coupon-mad and to all of you posters who offered advice and who through their contributions make this forum possible. Without it, I would not have known where to start.

This time around, it was quite a different hearing. The judge had clearly taken the time to read the defence and the witness statements, as well reading in detail the authorities (case law) I submitted.

During the review of the motion to strike out, the judge essentially repeated much of what I said below (this is the relevant portion of my witness statement that led to the claim being struck out) and I spoke only to confirm the Judge's interpretation and that this was indeed my argument.

The claimant's representative defended their POC by first stating that there's not enough space in MCOL to put a proper particulars of claim, upon which the Judge literally eviscerated her, pointing out that the two authorities I submitted explicitly disallowed this argument and that in any event, there's ample space to put in "failure to register on the electronic terminal" or "failure to have an e-permit".

Claimant's rep then went on to say it didn't matter, since it was clear from my appeal and from my defence and witness statement that I knew what the conduct was that they were relying on and pleaded to allow the case to go ahead nonetheless.

The Judge was having none of this and pointed out that the rules are clear - the specific conduct must be listed on the POC and that failure to do so disadvantaged me since I didn't know which allegation to respond to. I confirmed to the judge that this is why my defence covered so many angles and why my witness statement ran to 125 pages with evidence. 

The Judge noted that unauthorized parking is literally the fundamental issue underlying every parking case that comes before the court, bar none, and that it is not in any way a specific conduct to be relied on in a POC. The judge then struck out the claim.

1.       The Particulars of Claim in this case fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and in particular, Practice Direction Part 16.7.5, which states that “Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done”.

2.       Claimant’s signage, Exhibit 01, for the parking bays allocated to the medical centre, which forms the basis for their claimed agreement by conduct states that “Patients parking whilst attending the medical centre. Vehicle registration must be entered into the terminal in reception.”

3.       Claimant has put “Unauthorized parking” as the alleged breach of the terms and conditions, failing to specify the particular conduct on which the Claimant is relying to assert breach, namely the (non-)entry of vehicle registration details into the terminal in reception.

4.       Claimant was fully aware from the appeal representation I made that I was a valid patient of the medical centre, Exhibit 02, the tenant of Claimant’s client and that I was therefore legitimately using facilities provided for the use of patients. A failure to register details in the electronic terminal would have been the only possible grounds for alleged breach to specify on the Particulars of Claim.

5.       In the Appeal judgement in the case of Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan [2023] E7GM9W44, Exhibit 03, HHJ Murch held that “This is […] a technical point, but nonetheless the rules are clear. The particulars of claim must set out that conduct” and “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” and thus “I am persuaded that the right thing to do in this case is to strike out the claim form”.

6.       In a second Appeal judgment in the case of Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande [2024] K0DP5J30, Exhibit 04, HHJ Evans ruled that “Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim”.

7.       I believe that the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to the Claimant breaching the CPR. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached.

Coupon-mad

jd576 said:

Success. I won!

I confess to being mildly disappointed that it was because the claim was struck out due to a failure to adhere to Practice Direction 16.7.5, since I think I had a pretty strong case.

I would have ultimately preferred to win on the substance of the defence, since this would have made all enforcement by the firm in the residential area in question open to challenge. But, a win is a win.

Thank you in particular to @Coupon-mad and to all of you posters who offered advice and who through their contributions make this forum possible. Without it, I would not have known where to start.

This time around, it was quite a different hearing. The judge had clearly taken the time to read the defence and the witness statements, as well reading in detail the authorities (case law) I submitted.

During the review of the motion to strike out, the judge essentially repeated much of what I said below (this is the relevant portion of my witness statement that led to the claim being struck out) and I spoke only to confirm the Judge's interpretation and that this was indeed my argument.

The claimant's representative defended their POC by first stating that there's not enough space in MCOL to put a proper particulars of claim, upon which the Judge literally eviscerated her, pointing out that the two authorities I submitted explicitly disallowed this argument and that in any event, there's ample space to put in "failure to register on the electronic terminal" or "failure to have an e-permit".

Claimant's rep then went on to say it didn't matter, since it was clear from my appeal and from my defence and witness statement that I knew what the conduct was that they were replying on and pleaded to allow the case to go ahead nonetheless.

The Judge was having none of this and pointed out that the rules are clear - the specific conduct must be listed on the POC and that failure to do so disadvantaged me since I didn't know which allegation to respond to. I confirmed to the judge that this is why my defence covered so many angles and why my witness statement ran to 125 pages with evidence. 

The Judge noted that unauthorized parking is literally the fundamental issue underlying every parking case that comes before the court, bar none, and that it is not in any way a specific conduct to be relied on in a POC. The judge then struck out the claim.

1.       The Particulars of Claim in this case fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and in particular, Practice Direction Part 16.7.5, which states that “Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done”.

2.       Claimant’s signage, Exhibit 01, for the parking bays allocated to the medical centre, which forms the basis for their claimed agreement by conduct states that “Patients parking whilst attending the medical centre. Vehicle registration must be entered into the terminal in reception.”

3.       Claimant has put “Unauthorized parking” as the alleged breach of the terms and conditions, failing to specify the particular conduct on which the Claimant is relying to assert breach, namely the (non-)entry of vehicle registration details into the terminal in reception.

4.       Claimant was fully aware from the appeal representation I made that I was a valid patient of the medical centre, Exhibit 02, the tenant of Claimant’s client and that I was therefore legitimately using facilities provided for the use of patients. A failure to register details in the electronic terminal would have been the only possible grounds for alleged breach to specify on the Particulars of Claim.

5.       In the Appeal judgement in the case of Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan [2023] E7GM9W44, Exhibit 03, HHJ Murch held that “This is […] a technical point, but nonetheless the rules are clear. The particulars of claim must set out that conduct” and “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” and thus “I am persuaded that the right thing to do in this case is to strike out the claim form”.

6.       In a second Appeal judgment in the case of Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande [2024] K0DP5J30, Exhibit 04, HHJ Evans ruled that “Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim”.

7.       I believe that the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to the Claimant breaching the CPR. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached.

Very well done!

Which parking firm did you beat? Ah I see the thread title says PPM. Nice.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

There are so many cases of this sort of woeful POC wasting the court's time it is a national disgrace. Most have no judgment/order as they get all the way to hearings (like your case) but the written judgments link by @Le_Kirk now runs to almost 70 pages if this is the most up to date link I have here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2jef4c7bljyp6dse24p70/Judgments.pdf?rlkey=jsgusx180wzjz2f6er0436xw2&e=1&st=03x4tsbq&dl=0

It is fun beating a legal rep in court, isn't it?

One more day to do this if you haven't already:

FIGHTBACK ALERT - just ONE day to go!

Please do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline.

See this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law. 

I've written some guidance to help focus new posters on the issues. I've covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam over 18 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES TOMORROW BEFORE MIDNIGHT!

For ease and quick 'yes I will copy that phrase' inspiration read the Which? response they've just published:

https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/private-parking-code-of-practice-which-response-aMnXo1g7Dr2F

jd576

Coupon-mad said:

Very well done!

Which parking firm did you beat? Ah I see the thread title says PPM. Nice.

Yep. Parking and Property Management and BW Legal is their debt collector.

Coupon-mad said:

It is fun beating a legal rep in court, isn't it?

Oh yes, after all the days and days of time spent preparing the defence and witness statement, it was sweet.

The rep tried to come beforehand and get me to settle and also tried to determine my key arguments. I told the rep that there's nothing to mediate, that your client says I owe money, that I say I don't and that I'll only pay if the judge orders me to do so.

I declined to tell her which arguments I was going to focus on and simply told her "all of them, read my defence and witness statement".

I do feel a little cheated though. I think I could have won the case on the fundamentals (the claimant had no standing to sue me since they're a 3rd party manager of residential parking appointed by the landowner and there was no explicit variation to the tenant's lease that gave the parking manager the right to manage their spaces). Also, the terms and conditions were not posted at entry and the signage was completely unlit in hours of darkness, so not only did they have no legal basis to enter into a contract with me, any contract they entered into would not have been validly formed.

 But hey, I'll take the win! The claimant's rep left the court room before me and while I was packing my stuff away I said to the judge that I feel a little cheated since I think I had a pretty good case and could have won the case on the fundamentals. The judge looked at me and smiled. I'm probably reading more into it that there was, but based on how the judge eviscerated the legal rep and the diligence the judge displayed in having read all the arguments and the authorities I submitted, I definitely got the feeling that the judge agreed. 

 Thanks again to you and everyone else for all the help.

Le_Kirk

jd576 said:

Success. I won!

The claimant's representative defended their POC by first stating that there's not enough space in MCOL to put a proper particulars of claim, upon which the Judge literally eviscerated her, pointing out that the two authorities I submitted explicitly disallowed this argument and that in any event, there's ample space to put in "failure to register on the electronic terminal" or "failure to have an e-permit"

Well done on your win.  I would love to have seen this with blood and guts all over the courtroom floor!