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

Treble0548

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 defence 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).

Civil Enforcement Limited v  Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) Images
A transcript of the proceedings for the case Civil Enforcement Limited VS Ming Tak Chan is attached as images.
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 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.
 
 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

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.

Rest Of the template ....

Will look for more cases to add other that Ming Civil Enforcement Limited v  Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44). Im assuming that they will go above para 3 subheading "The facts known to the Defendant:"


Thank you for all your help!

LDast

I have no idea why so many people can't get the paragraph order 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

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

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 #4 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 #5 (#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.

Coupon-mad

Which is exactly the paragraph order seen in the link I provide in the Template Defence.

Treble0548

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  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

Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) transcript Images (1-4 pages)

The facts as known to the Defendant

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. Although it is acknowledged that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, it must be emphasized that they were not the driver at the time of the alleged incident.

5. The Defendant, in adherence to the instructions provided, refrains from providing details beyond those outlined in the Particulars of Claim. It is noted that the POC lacks any specific information regarding the circumstances surrounding the presence of the vehicle in question. As previously stated, the Defendant acknowledges their status as the registered keeper but reiterates their lack of involvement in the alleged breach. Furthermore, any potential reasons for the vehicle's presence remain unspecified within the POC. Therefore, the Defendant is unable to offer additional insight beyond what has been stated, as there is no further detail provided in the POC to address.

6. 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.

*************
Paragraph 5 has been highlighted to emphasize that it corresponds to the third paragraph in the template and contains unique information pertinent to my defense letter. The content provided accurately reflects the perspective of the registered keeper, who was not the driver at the time the parking ticket was issued.

Thanks again all for all the help

Coupon-mad

I think that should do. Quite bold to say you can't respond further but it might find favour with the allocating Judge who might be more likely to strike the claim out.

Treble0548

Our defence was acknowledged by the county court on 11/06/24. It is now 8/07/24, and I believe the parking company has 28 days to respond to the defence. Once this 28-day period has passed, what reasons can the parking company have to continue the claim? How should we contact the county court to inform them that the 28-day period has elapsed and request that the claim be struck out? Is that the correct terminology?

Thanks for the help everyone!

Gr1pr

Patience,

The CNBC are backlogged, plus you have no Idea when the CNBC submitted your defence to the claimant 

Keep checking your MCOL claim history for progress, its that simple for now 

They can continue because they paid for it , simple 

No county court is involved yet , never have been, your defence was submitted to the CNBC in Northampton, not the county court in Northampton, different addresses, different roles 

Eventually your local civil county court will be involved, once the CNBC send it to them 

KeithP

The CNBC sent you a letter, or will send you a letter, saying the Claimant has twenty eight days to consider your Defence.

What you don't know is when the CNBC sent a copy of your Defence to the Claimant. It follows from that that it is not known when the Claimant has to respond to the CNBC.

Further, we don't know what delays there are in the CNBC that means they don't send you a Directions Questionnaire as promptly as you might like.

That checklist you were once following states...
     YOU MAY HAVE TO WAIT TWO MONTHS OR SO FOR THE NEXT STEP TO HAPPEN

Can I suggest that you keep checking your MCOL Claim History and as soon as you see that the CNBC has sent a DQ to you, you are ready to download a DQ, complete it and fire it back at the CNBC, remembering to send a copy to the Claimant of course?

Treble0548

Thanks for all the replies.

• 28-day letter received: 11th June 2024
• Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claim Track received: 15th July 2024
• N180 Directions Questionnaire due by: 1st August 2024

I've filled out the N180 Directions Questionnaire using the forums and common sense.

On the N149A, it states the physical address of the court to send the N180. However, online it mentions sending it to DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk. I also need to send the N180 to the claimant and have found the following emails:

• office@ce-service.co.uk
• legal@ce-service.co.uk
• dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk
• legal3@ce-service.co.uk

Should I email all three/four via BCC, or send one to the court and another to the claimant?

Thanks in advance for your help!

LDast

Send single email addressed to the CNBC and one of those addresses, preferably legal@ce and CC in the other addresses as well as yourself.