DCB Legal + Parkmaven - Court claim form

LDast

You have already been advised to use the CEL v Chan "Preliminary Matter". Instead you have simply added a single para at #3. The Preliminary matter should have its own subheading from para #2 and should include the embedded images of the CEL v Chan transcript. Then you have the "Facts as known to the defendant" subheading with what is, above, your para #2.

Please, please, do not post the rest of the defence. We already know what is in there. I just don't understand why all those first paras get messed up.

Coupon-mad

You didn't have to add Chan to the template defence. I've done that work for you already.

The right paragraph order for 'Chan based' defences is in the linked alternative defence version in the third paragraph of the Template Defence itself.

Just use that. 

pcnhater

Apologies for the confusion caused.

I have copied following two from the link coupon-mad shared. I have written para 5 explaining what happened.  

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. 

[Images to be added]


5. The Defendant visited Salon situated in the office building but had not noticed any signage close to the where the Defendant parked, 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 not visible from where the defendant had parked. The small signage in other part of the car park was not suitable to alert all motorists. 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine as long as you have a paragraph 4. But wait:

One more question. Is the date in the POC the date of actual parking OR just the date of NTK?

pcnhater

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine as long as you have a paragraph 4. But wait:

One more question. Is the date in the POC the date of actual parking OR just the date of NTK?

That is numbering issue, I will correct it before sending.

 It is date of NTK.

1505grandad

"It is date of NTK."  -  just checking  -  all paperwork is and will be in name of your wife?

Coupon-mad

pcnhater said:

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine as long as you have a paragraph 4. But wait:

One more question. Is the date in the POC the date of actual parking OR just the date of NTK?

That is numbering issue, I will correct it before sending.

 It is date of NTK.

So, are you 100% sure that NOWHERE in the POC does it state the time or date of the conduct by the driver that they say caused a parking charge?  You need to add that then (state that the date given in the POC is not the date that the vehicle was at the private land) and state that this breaches Practice Direction 16.7.5 which requires "when" to be specified:

"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."

pcnhater

I submitted my defence on 13th via email which is showing as received on 14th May on MCOL. Looking forward to receiving discontinuation notice.

Umkomaas

pcnhater said:

I submitted my defence on 13th via email which is showing as received on 14th May on MCOL. Looking forward to receiving discontinuation notice.

Let us have a copy of the discontinuation notice, when it comes, then I can include you in the DCB Legal Discontinuation thread. Could be a few weeks/months yet. Usually around Witness Statement time.

pcnhater

Umkomaas said:

pcnhater said:

I submitted my defence on 13th via email which is showing as received on 14th May on MCOL. Looking forward to receiving discontinuation notice.

Let us have a copy of the discontinuation notice, when it comes, then I can include you in the DCB Legal Discontinuation thread. Could be a few weeks/months yet. Usually around Witness Statement time.

It will be an honour to be on that thread