Third Claim by NPM/Gladstones - Got CCJ cleared - WON AT COURT - Case Dismissed

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

Because that's your nearest?

Who set aside the CCJ? A local court after a hearing or the CNBC after a consent order?

CNBC after a consent order.

I never had a hearing. 

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

Because that's your nearest?

Who set aside the CCJ? A local court after a hearing or the CNBC after a consent order?

Order was by judge Hatzer at CNBC, without a hearing.

Coupon-mad

OK that's clearer.

So use the Template Defence as normal.

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

OK that's clearer.

So use the Template Defence as normal.

Yes, thank you. 

AdamBliss

My draft defence so far: 

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. 

3. The Defendant’s vehicle was parked at Whitbread College Street, Northampton, NN1 2ET. The Defendant does not recall the reasons for the vehicle's parking at that particular location, as he was not the driver during the time of the alleged parking contraventions. 

rest of paragraphs is just copy paste from template. 

Not sure what else to include. As this was 4 years ago, and I can't remember why the second driver was parked there. @Coupon-mad can I include the fact that the previous 2 claims from same claimant same car park was struck out, and state caust of action estoppel? or is this good to go? 

Coupon-mad

No you should DEFINITELY copy cause of action estoppel Henderson v Henderson wording (search the forum for a defence with those words already written, and copy).

If you weren't driving and it's years ago, you should say how you know this?

"The Defendant’s vehicle was parked at Whitbread College Street,"

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

No you should DEFINITELY copy cause of action estoppel Henderson v Henderson wording (search the forum for a defence with those words already written, and copy).

If you weren't driving and it's years ago, you should say how you know this?

"The Defendant’s vehicle was parked at Whitbread College Street,"

Defence Update:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

 

2. The Defendant respectfully brings to the attention of the allocating Judge that this now marks the third claim filed against me by the same claimant.                                                                                                                                             The Defendant would like to emphasise that the court has struck out the two previous claims pertaining to the same claimant and the same car park, referenced as Claim numbers 1 and Claim number 2       

                                                                                                                                                                                      Thus, I believe this "new" duplicated claim warrants dismissal due to the principle of Cause of Action estoppel. As the claimant is legally represented, they are expected to understand that detaching or allowing to remain detached components of alleged debts and issuing separate claims—each relying on essentially duplicative particulars and facts—constitutes an abuse of the civil litigation process.  

                                                                                                                                                                                             In Henderson v. Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, the court articulated several key principles: (i) Once a matter is in litigation, parties are obligated to present their entire case; (ii) The Court shall not allow the same parties to revisit the same subject of litigation regarding matters that could have been raised in earlier proceedings but were not due to negligence, oversight, or error; (iii) This prohibition applies to all matters, including those adjudicated in previous litigation as well as those that could have been advanced with reasonable diligence.

[I attached copies of the previous 2 struck out claims as reference]

 

 3. The Defendant asserts that there is now a persuasive appeal judgment that provides substantial grounds for 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(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.   

[Attached transcript copy of Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44)]

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. 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. 

6. The vehicle belonging to the Defendant was operated by a secondary driver, who parked it at Whitbread College Street, Northampton, NN1 2ET on three separate occasions.                                                                                                The Defendant received a Notice to Keeper Parking Charge Notice via postal mail and subsequently brought this matter to the attention of the second driver.                                                                                                                         The second driver acknowledged that he was parked in the aforementioned car park and declined to pay the alleged parking contravention penalties, asserting that private parking companies do not possess the authority to enforce parking penalties in the same manner as the council.

Rest is copy paste template. 

@Coupon-mad any further improvements? 

Thank you 

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

"The second driver acknowledged that he was parked in the aforementioned car park and declined to pay the alleged parking contravention penalties, asserting that private parking companies do not possess the authority to enforce parking penalties in the same manner as the council."

And after Chan, add words about Akande because there are now TWO persuasive appeal cases about woeful POC.

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this:

"The second driver acknowledged that he was parked in the aforementioned car park and declined to pay the alleged parking contravention penalties, asserting that private parking companies do not possess the authority to enforce parking penalties in the same manner as the council."

And after Chan, add words about Akande because there are now TWO persuasive appeal cases about woeful POC.

Thank you. Will update it. 

I added paragraph for CPM v Akande 2024 too, with a copy of the transcript. 
Gonna PDF the defence and send it to Gladstones and the court today. 

AdamBliss

Recieved a letter from CNBC

I need to fill in the DQ (Form N180) and send it by 2nd December.