CLAIM FORM - I have a LEASE CAR as a Small Business Owner - Unsure what to do next

freedom42

Here is my defence. Does it look any good?

As @KeithP mentioned above, they don't say what I (the driver) have done wrong, and so I used the hharry100 defence paragraph and Chan images....is that right? Any feedback from you or @Coupon-mad or anyone else in the know is very much appreciated. Thank you!

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 and driver.

3. The defendant parked the car in this residential site because he was picking up his partner, who lives on this residential site, to take her to the airport for a few days. He was given parking permits by his partner, who lives there, and had left them in the car window clearly visible, to cover the time he had left the car parked there, and was told by his partner that he has permission to park here.

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(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. 

I WILL HERE ADD THE 4 IMAGES OF CHAN CASE AND THEN THE REST OF DEFENCE WILL BE FROM THE STANDARD TEMPLATE

  

Castle

freedom42 said:

Here is my defence. Does it look any good?

As @KeithP mentioned above, they don't say what I (the driver) have done wrong, and so I used the hharry100 defence paragraph and Chan images....is that right? Any feedback from you or @Coupon-mad or anyone else in the know is very much appreciated. Thank you!

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 and driver.

  

As the defendant is a company it can't drive a car.

Coupon-mad

That's not the right paragraph order shown in the link in the 3rd paragraph of the Template Defence.  If using the hharry version, use the hharry thread link provided in the Template.

freedom42

Coupon-mad said:

That's not the right paragraph order shown in the link in the 3rd paragraph of the Template Defence.  If using the hharry version, use the hharry thread link provided in the Template.

Thank you for the feedback @Coupon-mad

So, do you mean I use this as a template: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80343256/#Comment_80343256

If that's correct, here is my new defence. Please let me know when you have a moment, if it's any good.

Thank you so much.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Parking Control Management Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

MY COMPANY NAME Ltd

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 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').

1. The facts 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 appears 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

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

THEN CHAN IMAGES

4. The defendant’s car was parked in this residential site to pick up the driver’s partner, who lives on this residential site, to travel with her to the airport. The defendant’s driver was given parking permits by his partner, who lives there, and had left them in the car window clearly visible, to cover the time he had left the car parked there, and was told by his partner that he has permission to park here.

5. The Defendant’s driver 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 small signage was not suitable to alert motorists. Due to the age of the alleged breach of contract the Defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN(s). 

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.

KeithP

Despite @Castle's comment on Monday, and your acknowledgement of it, you are still using the phrase "it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver".

kryten3000

The Defendant is the Limited Company and last time I checked, companies cannot drive cars.

It is admitted that the Defendant was the Hirer of the vehicle but liability is denied.

The Defendant is under NO OBLIGATION WHATEVER to reveal the identity of the driver.  

The other point to make is that if the lease company named your company as the hirer, they should have also sent a copy of the lease and waiver document to the Claimant.  The Claimant should have sent those documents with the Notice to Keeper.  I'd bet they didn't do this.  Consequently they cannot transfer liability to the hirer.

Can you see now why not identifying the driver is so important?  

freedom42

Thank you all for your kind and speedy feedback @kryten3000 and @KeithP .  Oh I see, sorry I misunderstood earlier. Thank you for clarification.

I've added paragraphs 5 and 6 based on your feedback, and removed reference to 'me' as driver.

Please do let me know if this is good enough or needs further adjustment? Thank you.

DEFENCE

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').

1. The facts 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 appears 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.

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

THEN CHAN IMAGES

4.  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.

5. The Defendant, being a limited company, is not a person and therefore cannot be held liable for the accused breach. Driving regulations apply to licensed drivers, not legal entities. The Defendant is under no obligation whatsoever to reveal the identity of the driver.

6. The Defendant submits that the Claimant failed to comply with the essential pre-requisites for transferring liability to the hirer under the relevant keeper liability regime. Specifically, the Claimant did not provide the Defendant with a copy of the lease agreement and waiver document outlining the terms and conditions of the hire, which is a fundamental requirement for establishing the Defendant's liability as the hirer.

freedom42

freedom42 said:

Thank you all for your kind and speedy feedback @kryten3000 and @KeithP .  Oh I see, sorry I misunderstood earlier. Thank you for clarification.

I've added paragraphs 5 and 6 based on your feedback, and removed reference to 'me' as driver.

Please do let me know if this is good enough or needs further adjustment? Thank you.

DEFENCE

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').

1. The facts 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 appears 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.

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

THEN CHAN IMAGES

4.  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.

5. The Defendant, being a limited company, is not a person and therefore cannot be held liable for the accused breach. Driving regulations apply to licensed drivers, not legal entities. The Defendant is under no obligation whatsoever to reveal the identity of the driver.

6. The Defendant submits that the Claimant failed to comply with the essential pre-requisites for transferring liability to the hirer under the relevant keeper liability regime. Specifically, the Claimant did not provide the Defendant with a copy of the lease agreement and waiver document outlining the terms and conditions of the hire, which is a fundamental requirement for establishing the Defendant's liability as the hirer.

Sorry to post this again, but just wondering if any of you reckon this defence is good enough? I hope to email it today if possible, as deadline is monday and don't want to do it last minute, and I've never done this kind of thing before. Thank you so much.

nopcns

The first paragraph is not numbered for some obscure reason. It must be paragraph #1. Next, you need to lead with the "Preliminary Matter". It is named "Preliminary" for a reason. I have no idea why people are getting the paragraph order all wrong.

So, from what you've shown us above, it should be as follows:

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 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

[CHAN IMAGES]

The facts as known to the Defendant

4. The facts 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 appears 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.

5.  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.

6. The Defendant, being a limited company, is not a person and therefore cannot be held liable for the accused breach. Driving regulations apply to licensed drivers, not legal entities. The Defendant is under no obligation whatsoever to reveal the identity of the driver.

7. The Defendant submits that the Claimant failed to comply with the essential pre-requisites for transferring liability to the hirer under the relevant keeper liability regime. Specifically, the Claimant did not provide the Defendant with a copy of the lease agreement and waiver document outlining the terms and conditions of the hire, which is a fundamental requirement for establishing the Defendant's liability as the hirer.

You may want to explain to the judge that what you are saying above in para #7 is required according to PoFA 2012 sections 13(2)(a), (b) and (c} if the Claimant intended to hold the keeper liable. All subsequent paragraphs renumbered accordingly.

freedom42

nopcns said:

The first paragraph is not numbered for some obscure reason. It must be paragraph #1. Next, you need to lead with the "Preliminary Matter". It is named "Preliminary" for a reason. I have no idea why people are getting the paragraph order all wrong.

So, from what you've shown us above, it should be as follows:

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 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

[CHAN IMAGES]

The facts as known to the Defendant

4. The facts 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 appears 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.

5.  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.

6. The Defendant, being a limited company, is not a person and therefore cannot be held liable for the accused breach. Driving regulations apply to licensed drivers, not legal entities. The Defendant is under no obligation whatsoever to reveal the identity of the driver.

7. The Defendant submits that the Claimant failed to comply with the essential pre-requisites for transferring liability to the hirer under the relevant keeper liability regime. Specifically, the Claimant did not provide the Defendant with a copy of the lease agreement and waiver document outlining the terms and conditions of the hire, which is a fundamental requirement for establishing the Defendant's liability as the hirer.

You may want to explain to the judge that what you are saying above in para #7 is required according to PoFA 2012 sections 13(2)(a), (b) and (c} if the Claimant intended to hold the keeper liable. All subsequent paragraphs renumbered accordingly.

Thank you so much for your kind feedback @nopcns.
I will make the changes you've suggested, including paragraph 7, and send it through later today. Cheers!