Defence for Parking Claim - advice please! (Civil National Business Centre)

JoeN1988

You'd think CEL would know better.

Coupon-mad

A_JS said:

Coupon-mad said:

Search the forum for violation date defence

Sorry being a newbie, I am not sure how - I tried searching with the magnifying glass but nothing specific came up. Are you able to link it so I can find easily please Coupon-mad?

No, because there isn't an "it" to link.

And I hate (and avoid) the bad practice of providing links when the main point is to coach & encourage newbies how to best use and research this forum.

Try again:

Search the forum for violation date defence and obviously change results to NEWEST and read all the CEL results. I'm signposting you to an extra defence point already written.  Go find it!

Le_Kirk

A_JS said:

3. The presence of the vehicle at the specified location is admitted. The Defendant is believed to of have entered (***** Road) car park on the **/**/2021 at: 20:00 and exited car park: 20:19, the total duration that the vehicle was stopped here was less than 20 minutes. The Defendant’s Solent NHS Parking Permit was clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle, The Defendant was working and undertaking duties by way of community visits to patients at the time the alleged parking charge was issued. The violation/breach event captured on ANPR camera failed to acknowledge the Defendants valid “Visitors Permit” that was clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle. The Defendant denies breaching terms and conditions of parking, photographic evidence of Defendants Permit can be provided to the court.

Are you using/have you found and read the template defence thread?  You need to correct this appalling grammar!  Also, I wouldn't call it a violation but an event.

nopcns

You need to be using the CEL v Chan Preliminary Matter defence. You aren't. Why?

A_JS

Le_Kirk said:

A_JS said:

3. The presence of the vehicle at the specified location is admitted. The Defendant is believed to of have entered (***** Road) car park on the **/**/2021 at: 20:00 and exited car park: 20:19, the total duration that the vehicle was stopped here was less than 20 minutes. The Defendant’s Solent NHS Parking Permit was clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle, The Defendant was working and undertaking duties by way of community visits to patients at the time the alleged parking charge was issued. The violation/breach event captured on ANPR camera failed to acknowledge the Defendants valid “Visitors Permit” that was clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle. The Defendant denies breaching terms and conditions of parking, photographic evidence of Defendants Permit can be provided to the court.

Are you using/have you found and read the template defence thread?  You need to correct this appalling grammar!  Also, I wouldn't call it a violation but an event.

Hello. Keith had already kindly pointed out a correction in the grammar. Yes I have drafted the rest of the defence using template but have only shared my personal paragraph for review. 

A_JS

Coupon-mad said:

A_JS said:

Coupon-mad said:

Search the forum for violation date defence

Sorry being a newbie, I am not sure how - I tried searching with the magnifying glass but nothing specific came up. Are you able to link it so I can find easily please Coupon-mad?

No, because there isn't an "it" to link.

And I hate (and avoid) the bad practice of providing links when the main point is to coach & encourage newbies how to best use and research this forum.

Try again:

Search the forum for violation date defence and obviously change results to NEWEST and read all the CEL results. I'm signposting you to an extra defence point already written.  Go find it!

Please see below for draft defence so far - any advice you can give or amendments kindly welcomed. Thank you!

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.

 

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 (transcript below), the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. This is the same claimant, and same POC.

(Images of transcript inserted here)

4. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. See below.

 

 (images)

 

 

5.  Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. See below.

(images)

 

6. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices, As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors - DCBLegal - confirmed they would not file an amended POC

 

(Images inserted)

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

 

7. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. The vehicle in question is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver, but liability is denied.  

 

8. The presence of the vehicle at the specified location is admitted. The Defendant is believed to have entered (***** Road) car park on the 14/11/2021 at: 20:00 and exited car park at: 20:19, the total duration that the vehicle was stopped here was less than 20 minutes. The Defendant’s Solent NHS Parking Permit was clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle; the Defendant was an authorised user, working and undertaking duties by way of community visits to patients at the time the alleged parking charge was issued. The event that was captured on “ANPR camera” or by “manual patrol” failed to acknowledge the Defendants valid “Essential Visitor Permit” that was clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle at the time. The Defendant denies breaching terms and conditions of parking, the Defendant was a permitted visitor using the car park appropriately and there has been no loss nor detriment caused to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge may be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that this 'fine' of £216.94 (plus £35.00 court fee and legal costs of £50.00 totalling £301.94) is a conscionable amount to be charged under these circumstances. Photographic evidence of Defendants Permit will be provided to the court.

 

9. 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.

 

10. 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

 

11. 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.

 

12. 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.

 

13. 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).

(I could not include the rest due to character limit - the Paragraphs reach 35 on my actual doc)

nopcns

Why have you truncated paragraph 1?

A_JS

nopcns said:

Why have you truncated paragraph 1?

Thanks for your observation, do you advise I use this: 

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').

I wasn't sure as my situation is different to some others on here, what do you make of paragraphs 7/8 please?   

A_JS

(Also is it worth mentioning now that I did receive letters in 2021 that I ignored)  ... 

If so would it be sensible to go no further with this and make the payment... ?

Coupon-mad

A_JS said:

(Also is it worth mentioning now that I did receive letters in 2021 that I ignored)  ... 

If so would it be sensible to go no further with this and make the payment... ?

Sorry?!

Errr...NEVER.  Even if you lose at a hearing you'd pay less than this claim!

Paragraph 8 has too much information, given you are saying the POC doesn't explain the breach. Don't fill in the gaps for them.