Seeking Feedback on Legal Defence Letter for Private Parking Fine County Court

Treble0548

Link to PDF Legal Defence Letter (based on boiler plate) document download
rebrand(dot)ly/shxmdf4

Thank You

Le_Kirk

Just post here the paragraphs from your defence that you have amended from the template or added to it. Do NOT show us the whole template.  Also show us your (suitably redacted) claim showing the POC.

Treble0548

Defendant

Particulars of Claim

Claim for money relating to a Parking Charge for breach of contract terms/conditions (TCs) for parking in private car park (CP) managed by Claimant. Drivers may only park pursuant to TCs of use displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/parking. ANPR cameras or manual patrols monitor vehicles entering/existing the CP and TC breaches. Charges of GBP 170.00 claimed.
Violation date: 09/07/2022
Payment due date: 07/08/2022
Time in: 17:23 Time out 22:39
PCN:
Vehicle reg mark:

The full pdf Claim document can be viewed here:
rebrand(dot)ly/qwx3983


I filed a AoS through moneyclaim.gov.uk defending all claims/charges on 23.05.2024. How long do I have to submit my defence?


My defense is the following:

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 respectfully brings to the attention of the presiding Judge the existence of a
recent persuasive Appeal judgment supporting the striking out of claims in circumstances
akin to the poorly pleaded private parking claim at hand. The particulars of claim (POC) in
this instance are notably deficient, even more so than the case reviewed on Appeal. The
Defendant firmly believes that the dismissal of this baseless claim aligns with the Overriding
Objective of the court. It is expected that legal entities engaging in bulk litigation should
adhere to a higher standard of compliance with the Practice Direction. By persisting in
submitting cases with generic, inadequately detailed content, private parking firms should
anticipate courts exercising their authority to strike out such claims, as supported by the
aforementioned persuasive authority.
The facts presented in this defense are based on the Defendant's personal knowledge and
sincere belief. In contrast, the Claimant's submission appears to be a haphazardly assembled,
vague statement lacking coherence. The POC seem to contravene CPR 16.4, 16PD3, and
16PD7, failing to provide all necessary facts to formulate a complete cause of action.
Consequently, the Defendant faces difficulty in comprehending the case, specific allegations,
and the cost elements being pursued based on the POC. However, it is acknowledged that the
Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, not the driver.
Furthermore, it is crucial to clarify that the Defendant in question was not the driver at the
time of the alleged parking charge. As the registered keeper, the Defendant is not obliged to
disclose information regarding the driver in cases of Private Parking Charge for breach of
contract terms/conditions (TCs).

The facts known to the Defendant:
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.

A transcript of the proceedings for the case Civil Enforcement Limited VS Ming Tak Chan is attached as images.

3.1

3.1 The Defendant, as the registered keeper at the time of the parking charge, was not
physically present at the time of the alleged incident. The Defendant has no further
information regarding the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach, as the details
provided in the Particulars of Claim are limited. It is important to clarify that the
Defendant's role as the registered keeper does not necessitate disclosing the identity of the driver. Any lack of correspondence or lapse in memory regarding the incident is sincerely
acknowledged.


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.


from here its the rest of the template.

Thank you for all your help


I parked at a place for an event, where guests are supposed to park for free by registering their vehicle's registration number. However, the signage for this rule was not visible. I did not register. When I called the hotel, they confirmed the registration process but mentioned that no physical evidence or ticket is given to the driver. This lack of evidence makes it difficult to defend whether the vehicle was registered or not. The hotel also mentioned they could have resolved the ticket if it hadn't reached the claims stage, which is where we are now.

KeithP

Here are the Particulars from your Claim Form...

As you have already noticed, those Particulars do not make any attempt to state what the driver has done wrong.
This will be an easy win.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th June 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

LDast

Treble0548 said:

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 respectfully brings to the attention of the presiding Judge the existence of a
recent persuasive Appeal judgment supporting the striking out of claims in circumstances
akin to the poorly pleaded private parking claim at hand. The particulars of claim (POC) in
this instance are notably deficient, even more so than the case reviewed on Appeal. The
Defendant firmly believes that the dismissal of this baseless claim aligns with the Overriding
Objective of the court. It is expected that legal entities engaging in bulk litigation should
adhere to a higher standard of compliance with the Practice Direction. By persisting in
submitting cases with generic, inadequately detailed content, private parking firms should
anticipate courts exercising their authority to strike out such claims, as supported by the
aforementioned persuasive authority.
Missing para number here.The facts presented in this defense are based on the Defendant's personal knowledge and
sincere belief. In contrast, the Claimant's submission appears to be a haphazardly assembled,
vague statement lacking coherence. The POC seem to contravene CPR 16.4, 16PD3, and
16PD7, failing to provide all necessary facts to formulate a complete cause of action.
Consequently, the Defendant faces difficulty in comprehending the case, specific allegations,
and the cost elements being pursued based on the POC. However, it is acknowledged that the
Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, not the driver.
Furthermore, it is crucial to clarify that the Defendant in question was not the driver at the
time of the alleged parking charge. As the registered keeper, the Defendant is not obliged to
disclose information regarding the driver in cases of Private Parking Charge for breach of
contract terms/conditions (TCs).

The facts known to the Defendant:
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.

The images of the transcript go before the "facts known to the defendant subheading.A transcript of the proceedings for the case Civil Enforcement Limited VS Ming Tak Chan is attached as images.

3.1 Number all paragraphs sequentially with an integer.

3.1 The Defendant, as the registered keeper at the time of the parking charge, was not
physically present at the time of the alleged incident. The Defendant has no further
information regarding the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach, as the details
provided in the Particulars of Claim are limited. It is important to clarify that the
Defendant's role as the registered keeper does not necessitate disclosing the identity of the driver. Any lack of correspondence or lapse in memory regarding the incident is sincerely
acknowledged.


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.

The images of the transcript go immediately before the "Facts know to the defendant. You have missed numbering the paragraph after #2. Paragraph #4 is the paragraph immediately after the "Facts known to the defendant". Every paragraph should be numbered sequentially with an integer.

Attention to detail is paramount if you want to be successful.

Coupon-mad

You simply copy the paragraph order shown in all the other 2024 CEL defences, which include an extra point that I keep saying to include (and it isn't just CEL v Chan).

Please search for other CEL defence threads.

Copy.

Show us.

Treble0548

Hi all thank you very much for you replies really do appreciate it.

If the defendant wants to be respented by someone else will this suffice

"In this matter, I, [Defendant's Name], would like to inform the court that I am being represented by my son/daughter, [Son/daughter Name], in this case. As such, all correspondence and legal matters pertaining to this claim should be directed to him as my authorized representative."

If this is the case and can be allowed at the bottom of the defence letter should there also be area/space for the representative to sign date the defence letter too?

Thank you.

LDast

Is your son/daughter legally qualified? If your son or daughter is legally qualified, they can represent you in court and address the court on your behalf.

Your only other option is if they are acting as a lay representative, they would need to seek permission from the court to do so. They would do this on the day of any hearing. They can then represent you in court and address the court as your representative. However, you would be required to attend and would have to answer any questions directed to you by the judge.

They could do all the paperwork for you in your name but it is you who would be responding.

Simply writing what you have suggested is a no go.

Treble0548

LDast said:

Is your son/daughter legally qualified? If your son or daughter is legally qualified, they can represent you in court and address the court on your behalf.

Your only other option is if they are acting as a lay representative, they would need to seek permission from the court to do so. They would do this on the day of any hearing. They can then represent you in court and address the court as your representative. However, you would be required to attend and would have to answer any questions directed to you by the judge.

They could do all the paperwork for you in your name but it is you who would be responding.

Simply writing what you have suggested is a no go.

No son/daughter is not legally qualified. I am either son/daughter of defendant, doing all the write up.  So the request to act a lay representative wil be done on the actual day of the hearing or before i.e. e-mail, filling out form etc..?

Thank you

Treble0548

The top few paragraphs the rest is the tempalate

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 respectfully brings to the attention of the presiding Judge the existence of a recent persuasive Appeal judgment supporting the striking out of claims in circumstances akin to the poorly pleaded private parking claim at hand. The particulars of claim (POC) in this instance are notably deficient, even more so than the case reviewed on Appeal. The Defendant firmly believes that the dismissal of this baseless claim aligns with the Overriding Objective of the court. It is expected that legal entities engaging in bulk litigation should adhere to a higher standard of compliance with the Practice Direction. By persisting in submitting cases with generic, inadequately detailed content, private parking firms should anticipate courts exercising their authority to strike out such claims, as supported by the aforementioned persuasive authority.

 Civil Enforcement Limited v  Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) Images

 3. The facts presented in this defense are based on the Defendant's personal knowledge and sincere belief. In contrast, the Claimant's submission appears to be a haphazardly assembled, vague statement lacking coherence. The POC seem to contravene CPR 16.4, 16PD3, and 16PD7, failing to provide all necessary facts to formulate a complete cause of action. Consequently, the Defendant faces difficulty in comprehending the case, specific allegations, and the cost elements being pursued based on the POC. However, it is acknowledged that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, not the driver. Furthermore, it is crucial to clarify that the Defendant in question was not the driver at the time of the alleged parking charge. As the registered keeper, the Defendant is not obliged to disclose information regarding the driver in cases of Private Parking Charge for breach of contract terms/conditions (TCs). 

The facts known to the Defendant:

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. 

5. The Defendant, as the registered keeper at the time of the parking  charge, was not physically present at the time of the alleged incident.  The Defendant has no further information regarding the circumstances  surrounding the alleged breach, as the details provided in the Particulars of Claim are limited. It is important to clarify that the  Defendant's role as the registered keeper does not necessitate  disclosing the identity of the driver. Any lack of correspondence or lapse in memory regarding the incident is sincerely acknowledged.

Coupon-mad

That isn't the recommended paragraph order that I link to, in the 3rd paragraph of the Template Defence.

And defence has no 'S'. We aren't in the USA!