DCBLegal

Gr1pr

Must have been an old template, several years old , because the statement of truth changed a few years ago , April 2020 to be exact 

I didn't include a link to a template, I included a link to an example from today being actively worked on by the  defendant , based on the latest exemplar template by coupon mad 

Stick to the template by coupon mad 

Coupon-mad

There is still no such legal entity as Capital Car Park Control. Like I said, you must copy what the Claim form says the company name is.

You've copied a version of the Template Defence but for some reason with no images of the Chan transcript?

It still looks to me like you haven't found the Template Defence thread that I clearly link in the NEWBIES thread. Or you can find it yourself at the top of the forum, because like the NEWBIES thread, it's a pinned announcement, always near the top. 

Just go to the Template Defence thread.

You are either using the Chan one (with images) or the original Template Defence. Like everyone here with a claim form!  Really easy stuff. Two defences to choose from.

Gedukaz

Coupon-mad said:

There is still no such legal entity as Capital Car Park Control. Like I said, you must copy what the Claim form says the company name is.

You've copied a version of the Template Defence but for some reason with no images of the Chan transcript?

It still looks to me like you haven't found the Template Defence thread that I clearly link in the NEWBIES thread. Or you can find it yourself at the top of the forum, because like the NEWBIES thread, it's a pinned announcement, always near the top. 

Just go to the Template Defence thread.

You are either using the Chan one (with images) or the original Template Defence. Like everyone here with a claim form!  Really easy stuff. Two defences to choose from.

Sorry Coupon-mad for any silly questions, but is this the right template?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

CAPITAL CAR PARK CONTROL LTD

(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 but deny being the driver at the time.



3. A company secured a large section of private land to create an enclosed site compound to carry out extensive work on buildings on the land from Oct 2022 till June 2024. The defendant's vehicle was parked on private land which Capital Car Park Control LTD have no jurisdiction over. The private land can only be accessed via Hotspur Street. The Capital Car Park Control LTD CCTV camera is located at the entrance to Hotspur Street and captures the defendant's vehicle entering the estate at the start of the working day and leaving at the end of the working day. However, the defendant had not parked in any bay or area controlled by Capital Car Park Control LTD.

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. 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

5. 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.


6. 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


7.  The Particulars of Claim ('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 is being pursued.  The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise:

(a) the contractual term(s) relied upon;
(b) the details of any alleged breach of contract
(c) how many 'PCNs' are being pursued in this claim, exactly when the alleged conduct occurred (dates and times) and how much each of these charges were;

7.1.  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.

8. 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.

9. 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.


Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

10. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

11. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

12. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

13. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

14. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

15. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

16. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

17. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times less' than the  fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent.  MoJ statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

18. It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

19. This Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation (NB: debt collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).

20. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged. It will replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulation and carry limited weight.  It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure'.

21. At last, the DLUHC's analysis overrides plainly wrong findings by Circuit Judges steered by Counsel in weak appeal cases that the parking industry steamrollered through. In Vehicle Control Services v Percy, HHJ Saffman took a diametrically opposed position to that taken by DJ Hickinbottom, DJ Jackson (as Her Honour Judge Jackson then was), and other District Judges on the North Eastern Circuit, including DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds and DJ Wright (Skipton) all of whom have consistently dismissed extortionate added 'fees/damages'. District Judges deal with private parking claims on a daily basis, whereas cases of this nature come before Circuit Judges infrequently. The Judgments of HHJ Parkes in Britannia v Semark-Jullien, and HHJ Simpkiss in One Parking Solution v Wilshaw were flawed. These supposedly persuasive judgments included a universal failure to consider the court's duty under s71 of the CRA 2015 and factual errors. In Wilshaw: a badly outdated reliance on 'ticket cases' which allowed poor signage to escape fair scrutiny and a wrong presumption that landowner authority 'is not required' (DVLA rules make it mandatory). In Percy, HHJ Saffman made an incorrect assumption about pre-action costs and even sought out the wrong Code of Practice of his own volition after the hearing, and used it to inform his judgment.

22. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance if seeking 'keeper liability'.

23. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they meet the signage requirements in the DLUHC Code which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

 

 

Gedukaz

Coupon-mad said:

There is still no such legal entity as Capital Car Park Control. Like I said, you must copy what the Claim form says the company name is.

You've copied a version of the Template Defence but for some reason with no images of the Chan transcript?

It still looks to me like you haven't found the Template Defence thread that I clearly link in the NEWBIES thread. Or you can find it yourself at the top of the forum, because like the NEWBIES thread, it's a pinned announcement, always near the top. 

Just go to the Template Defence thread.

You are either using the Chan one (with images) or the original Template Defence. Like everyone here with a claim form!  Really easy stuff. Two defences to choose from.

Chan transcript what is it as I cant find anything about it.

Gr1pr

Its all in the hharry100 variation as mentioned in the template defence 

Gedukaz

Gr1pr said:

Its all in the hharry100 variation as mentioned in the template defence 

Sorry to be a pain in the back side. I found the Template that refers to.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

CAPITAL CAR PARK CONTROL LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

My name

 (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 the driver.

 

5. A company secured a large section of private land to create an enclosed site compound to carry out extensive work on buildings on the land from Oct 2022 till June 2024. The defendant's vehicle was parked on private land which Capital Car Park Control LTD have no jurisdiction over. The private land can only be accessed via Hotspur Street. The Capital Car Park Control LTD CCTV camera is located at the entrance to Hotspur Street and captures the defendant's vehicle entering the estate at the start of the working day and leaving at the end of the working day. However, the defendant had not parked in any bay or area controlled by Capital Car Park Control LTD.

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.

Coupon-mad

Yes, that second one is right if the POC don't state the specific alleged breach.

Obviously it's not just six paragraphs, but please please please don't show us the rest of the template again. You've no idea how many people do that...! Spare us.

But this is REALLY confusing, given it's the polar opposite of what your last draft said:

"it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver."

Gedukaz

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, that second one is right if the POC don't state the specific alleged breach.

Obviously it's not just six paragraphs, but please please please don't show is the rest of the template again. You've no idea how many people do that...! Spare us.

But this is REALLY confusing, given it's the polar opposite of what your last draft said:

"it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver."

Coupon - mad I can imagine how many treads you and others need to go through. Nope it's not 6 but I showed the first pages making sure it was the correct one

Gr1pr

On page 5 paragraph 4 overleaf it only mentions Registered Keeper , then paragraph 5 says the defendant had not parked, but should say the driver had not parked ( not defendant. ,)

In the latest draft above,  Registered keeper and Driver are mentioned 

You have to make decisions on your role here, as to the entities involved, registered keeper, driver, defendant, where CCPC LTD are the claimant being represented by the lawyers 

Gedukaz

Gr1pr said:

On page 5 paragraph 4 overleaf it only mentions Registered Keeper , then paragraph 5 says the defendant had not parked, but should say the driver had not parked ( not defendant. ,)

In the latest draft above,  Registered keeper and Driver are mentioned 

You have to make decisions on your role here, as to the entities involved, registered keeper, driver, defendant, where CCPC LTD are the claimant being represented by the lawyers 

thank you I have ammeded to the driver. I have written paragraph 5 in the third person using the defendant instead of the driver as I thought it was the same as I am the defendant and the driver.