Parking Control Management N1SDT

Coupon-mad

We want to help.

Please don't put it under a spoiler.  Just post the words, copy & paste paragraphs 1-8 (minus your name) so we can see them.  Where the Chan images will be embedded into your actual word doc (to be saved as a PDF once done), just put in your reply here: 'Chan images go here'.

Then we know you have copied the defence linked in the Template Defence.

LDast

Pointing out that you have not redacted your personal information such as your name and the claim number are meant to get you to rectify that problem. We answer hundreds of questions on here every day. We cannot hand-hold everyone through all the steps when they are already clearly set out in the Newbies/FAQ thread.

The burden of proof of anything else is on the Claimant. You have asked the allocating judge to strike out the claim in your paras #2 and #3 because of the woeful PoC (although it has been highlighted that you need to embed the transcript after those two paras).

I think that pointing out that your para #5 only repeats what your para #3 says should be enough for you to realise that you need to answer the allegation made in the PoC. If all you can answer is that you recognise the location and the vehicle and nothing else, then that is what you put in your para #5 (or whatever the subsequent renumbering requires if you add another paragraph.

How about adding another item under the "Preliminary Matter " sub heading, after the CEL v Chan transcripts as your new para #4:

#. Additionally the Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

I am sorry if you feel that you are not getting the advice you feel you need. No one is going to advise you to just give up and pay. We help hundreds of people every day and some are obviously less robust than others. This is an attempt to give you that bit extra to carry on.

90Ninety

Apologies I am struggling with anger management while writing this , feels like a valve is about to explode .. It's so very frustrating since I got this wretched ticket while doing a favor (moving apartment contents ) for a Bi-Po friend having a mental breakdown after their subletter went AWOL  :'(

1.   The Go-to 'Template defense to adapt for all parking cases' here template while incredibly helpful  its an  overwhelming information overload for those with little/ no experience in civil defenses, do we need to understand it all , reword all or just some suitable paragraphs to suit   ? 

2. It also doesn't help this case that I am a third party driver , and so by design the defense is open to suggestion on how much is known regarding the why/how and story of why the car was there, in other words its up to me how much / how little can be stated  ..
Im cognizant that my mother will not want to assert herself or even fight this in any way , she just wanted to help pay it off - bless her .   For example I know why the car was there (visiting a friend) , on face value of the claim my mum doesn't , she isn't aware of the location ect , so I am dubious of writing explaining visitors rights  and having a car fob within the defense ( and thus being de-facto authorized to park there by design  . 
) , 
3. With the spareness of the POC , then I guess I do not need to add the reasoning of why the car was there , as per Le Kirk suggestion 

Le_Kirk said:

Since the POC are vague, you, well elderly Mother, simply uses the @hharry defence shown here: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80343627/#Comment_80343627
and adjusts paragraph #5 to say very little except maybe "the car was there" without admitting anything else or embellishing or adding, since you have NO IDEA what the claimant is claiming.  Then take out the instruction words and that becomes Mother's defence.  Save as a .pdf and send to the e-mail address shown in the table in the Template Defence thread.

LDast

Correct. You need take the basic Template Defence and do the following:

Leave para #1 as is.

Insert subheading "Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out".

Paras #2 and #3 are the those from the hharry100 link as shown here:

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

The add the 4 images of the CEL v Chan transcript.

Next you can add another preliminary matter as para #4  for the allocating judge to consider as follows:

4. Additionally, the Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

Next will be another subheading titled "The facts as known to the Defendant"

Next is the para #2 from the Template Defence but now becomes para #5 in your defence. You only need to edit the bit about whether the Defendant was the keeper, the driver, both or neither.

Next is your para #6 (#3 in the template) which is where you are answering the allegation in the PoC. You are only answering those allegations and, as we already know, they are inadequate so all you can do is state any known facts in those PoC.

Finally, the rest of the template defence follows and we don't need to see that as nothing is changed in there except that all subsequent paragraphs may need to be renumbered sequentially.

I hope that helps to clarify what you need to do to get this right.

90Ninety

Ok so the defense is below 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXX

Between

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Moyra XXXXs

 (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

 

 

CEL vs Chan Transcripts image 1 

CEL vs Chan Transcripts image 2 

CEL vs Chan Transcripts image 3

CEL vs Chan Transcripts image 4

 

 

 

4.       Additionally the Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

 

 

Statement of FACTS

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  recognises to be the registered keeper of the vehicle though is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegations and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond.

 

 

Insufficient  Claim Particulars

 

6.      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 .

 

7-31 paragraphs obscured but are included though borrowed from original Template here 

 

LDast

Much better.

Coupon-mad

Yes far better!  Almost done.

I would change this paragraph:

6.       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 .

to these two paragraphs which gives her more of a foothold of a defence:


6.    The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but she was not the driver.  Whilst there is nothing in the POC to specify the allegation or a breakdown of supposed heads of costs, the Defendant has spoken to the driver and they had the authority of a resident. The driver was helping that resident to move the contents of the flat on site. At all material times the driver was loading and as such, there was no parking contract in play and the Defendant relies upon the persuasive Jopson v Homeguard parking case heard on appeal at Oxford court by HHJ Harris QC.

7.  The Defendant is unaware of any written, oral or other agreement in place with the Claimant. Furthermore the POC, alleging a vague ‘breach of contract’ are not sufficient to set out the conduct relied upon by this notorious ex-clamper Claimant.

8. - 32. is the rest of the template defence.

90Ninety

Hi 

An update , just received the N180, filling it in following the procedure number four here 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325/court-claim-procedure-updated-october-2016/p1




I have attached the scanned  N180 , it seems the number order is slightly different on mine . D1 = E1 , D2 =E2 ect  .. See here for reference . 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c81-DLlWSc-OoDAHtQytB4fFw29c0SdD/view?usp=drive_link

With regards to D1 in the above image , E1 on my N180 .. I write Watford County Court  but the form asks for what reason, I presume here I write , "this is my nearest court "

With Regards to Witnesses  (D3/E3)  in my particular case, since the defendant wasn't driving, am I presume I am the witness right? 

With Regards to Vulnerabilities ( D5/E5 ) Do I write here the defendant's son is will give evidence since the  defendant is disabled, elderly ? 

Thanks in Advance for fighting the good fight ! 

Coupon-mad

Those questions are already covered in the NEWBIES, where you found that old link.

You are a witness.  You can mention your vulnerability if you wish and say you will be attending with a lay representative (son).

No permission is needed, so don't ask. Tell.

90Ninety

Thanks , according to the newbies forum , the N180 should be emailed (below)  , 





The  digital version ( updated 13th of june ) as recommended in the template link (shown below ) of the N180  , has no option to opt-out of Mediation , there is no A1, opt out , it just assumes you will attend mediation 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track




Bit wary of using this now .. Perhaps stick to the paper 2022 version I received