Parking Control Management N1SDT

Coupon-mad

Please don't use links. Just reply with the first 8 paragraphs of your defence for us to check.

90Ninety

KeithP said:

That's not a useful link...

I think its fixed

KeithP

90Ninety said:

KeithP said:

That's not a useful link...

I think its fixed

Not for me it isn't. Still the same - requires a sign-in.
Have you considered something more universally available? Like Dropbox perhaps?
Or as others have said, just post it inline.

90Ninety

Perhaps the browser cache was loading old permissions 

Google version here 

KeithP

Moyra, is that your real name we can see?    

90Ninety

KeithP said:

Moyra, is that your real name we can see?    

Ahahhaa ... She asked if you want a tea for your efforts

Coupon-mad

Please just reply with the first 8 paragraphs of your defence for us to check.  Using the hharry100 version linked by me in the Template Defence itself (third paragraph).  It's already written.

Don't show us the whole 30+ paragraphs.

90Ninety

ok I 1-8 is below 

I understand this has to be sent today , or tomorrow 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  L3GF44M3

Between

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Moyra Haynes

 (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 the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

 

 

 

 

Statement of FACTS

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

 

Insufficient  Claim Particulars

5.      The defendant is the owner of the vehicle, however, the defendant is not aware exactly of what the claim is relating to and its likely the owner was not the driver. The defendant is unaware of any written, oral or other  agreement in place with the Claimant. Furthermore the particulars of claim, alleging to have a ‘breach of contract’ regarding parking  are not sufficient to set out the conduct relied upon as amounting to a breach of contract .According to CPR the contents of the particulars of claim .  ‘The POC (particulars of claim) must include concise statement of facts , a statement of interest, and any other matters as set out in Practice Direction’ As listed in Practice direction 16, paragraph 7 “ Other matters included in the POC” Pertinent to this claim is paragraph 7.5, that states “Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct relied upon and state by whom , when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done”  It is alleged that “the driver breached the terms on the signs (the contract)”. The Particulars of this claim are totally inadequate. Nowhere within the particulars is there explanation of what is alleged to have occurred . There is no recollection of any misconduct of the owner or any drivers of this vehicle .  There are a number of ways in which one might breach a contract terms and conditions . This is not set out  or mentioned in the brief claim particulars . The claim particulars do not meet Practice Direction 16 Paragraph 7.5 . By way of example, one may have left their permit obscured. There maybe failure to park within the correct bay. The car may also have parked in a space reserved for those with disabilities , without showing a disabled badge . Alternatively it may be whereby a case of overstaying a certain period of time .  None of these examples were given in the particulars

 

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

 

6.      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.

7.      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.

8.      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).

LDast

In the example in the linked Google file, your para #5 just repeats what your para #2 already states. Also, your real name and claim number are not redacted. Bad move. Also, where are the embedded images of the CEL v Chan transcript after your para #3?

90Ninety

LDast said:

In the example in the linked Google file, your para #5 just repeats what your para #2 already states. Also, your real name and claim number are not redacted. Bad move. Also, where are the embedded images of the CEL v Chan transcript after your para #3?

Sorry but this isn't constructive , I can take criticism if its constructive but , you are just saying what I'm doing wrong, this is not going to cut it , if we are hoping to win again against these parasitic parking cowboys  .. In fact the overall tone on this post has been negative .. This is not how things get resolved , we dont naturally focus on' Not what to do' , but instead it is more tangible to focus on 'What to do! '

The template and guidance gave me hope though the execution and using of the template is being shot down at every attempt . It would of just been easier just to pay this at this rate  Instead of me just going around in circles .. 

Im no dummy , but this seems to be some kind of loosing saga .. .This would sadly be the first time to concede to any kind of parking charge  and I have several experiences of getting PCN being cancelled dropped , largely in part to these forums  

Worse case is that we just concede at this point since , I have lost hope of any kind of support here