Claim form received from civil enforcement LTD

KeithP

Bobbob5655 said:

If the postcode of where the ‘offence’ has taken place isn’t on the POC how will this help me form a defence?

From looking at the Particulars of Claim, the only description of the place is "Car park:- Bricklayers Arms".

That simply isn't good enough. They have not stated where the alleged parking event took place. Just stick 'Bricklayers Arms' into google to get an idea of how many pubs of that name there are in this country.

That together with my earlier point - they don't even say what the Defendant is alleged to have done wrong - should see this farcical claim dismissed. 

Coupon-mad

Just search & copy another recent CEL defence, with the extra point about the interest being wrongly calculated from a premature date.  This is in every recent one.

LDast

KeithP said:

From looking at the Particulars of Claim, the only description of the place is "Car park:- Bricklayers Arms".

That simply isn't good enough. They have not stated where the alleged parking event took place. Just stick 'Bricklayers Arms' into google to get an idea of how many pubs of that name there are in this country.

That together with my earlier point - they don't even say what the Defendant is alleged to have done wrong - should see this farcical claim dismissed. 

Bobbob5655 said:

...When I first received the ‘invoice’ back in 2022

As an NtK was issued at the time and the OP acknowledges having received it, it will depend on whether the car park location was identified properly, including a post code on that document. If the location given in the NtK gives rise to ambiguity, then the argument about keeper liability can be made with regards to PoFA 9(2)(a) "relevant land".

KeithP

LDast said:

KeithP said:

From looking at the Particulars of Claim, the only description of the place is "Car park:- Bricklayers Arms".

That simply isn't good enough. They have not stated where the alleged parking event took place. Just stick 'Bricklayers Arms' into google to get an idea of how many pubs of that name there are in this country.

That together with my earlier point - they don't even say what the Defendant is alleged to have done wrong - should see this farcical claim dismissed. 

Bobbob5655 said:

...When I first received the ‘invoice’ back in 2022

As an NtK was issued at the time and the OP acknowledges having received it, it will depend on whether the car park location was identified properly, including a post code on that document. If the location given in the NtK gives rise to ambiguity, then the argument about keeper liability can be made with regards to PoFA 9(2)(a) "relevant land".

Even if the NtK properly identifies the parking location, surely that doesn't allow the Claimant to be vague when writing the Particulars, does it?
Taken to its extreme, could we see Particulars stating something like "see the Notice to Keeper for details"?

LDast

I don't disagree. We already know that in every single claim where they rely on the MCOL, the PoC are woefully inadequate. Every Claimant has the option to provide detailed PoC separately. They choose not to and we argue that point in the template defence. Unfortunately, many, if not most judges choose to ignore that and still give far too much leeway to the roboclaim claimants.

In this case, having acknowledged receipt of an NtK, if that NtK contained an unambiguous location for the relevant land, the defendant cannot argue that they don't know where this alleged breach of contract took place. However, as you already point out, "...they don't even say what the Defendant is alleged to have done wrong - should see this farcical claim dismissed."

KeithP said:

Taken to its extreme, could we see Particulars stating something like "see the Notice to Keeper for details"?

Which is why every MCOL claim should say something like "see separate detailed PoC for details"!

Bobbob5655

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. 

4. 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.

5. 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

rest of the template...

Coupon-mad

You've not put in any facts.

Bobbob5655

5. The Defendant vaguely remembers the day in question, he and a friend had gone to the public house and parked in the car park attached to the pub for allegedly 23 minutes which he had parked in on previous occasions (Pre Covid) with no issues. The defendant was a paying patron at the establishment, where the defendant parked there wasn't signage in the line of sight. 

apologies about the above i just posted the template un edited 

Coupon-mad

Much better.

Bobbob5655

Thanks for you help again, all sent off. One quick question how long does it take to get an acknowledgement of defence usually ?