Received Claim Form but not a PCN

tiger_stripes

Ok, no problem. I'd much rather have your time and help with my draft WS, once I post it here (hopefully tomorrow) - the deadline is this week.
Thank you, it is very much appreciated.

tiger_stripes

Deadline tomorrow (Wednesday). Please could you read my WS so far?
I have wrote the main parts, and have tried to add more using other examples and adapting them to suit my own WS (especially as I read the C's WS as not as condescending as others seem to be, and I don't fully understand the extra costs, including the C's defence against that). I have now gotten to the point where I feel I may have mixed things up, and I'm struggling to order it correctly and produce an end to my WS.

The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

 

Facts and sequence of events

 

1.      The months surrounding the alleged breach in 2023, I parked in the car park frequently to attend work. Every time I entered the car park I purchased a ticket for the duration I was parking for. I always used the ticket machine and entered the correct VRM, and paid by card all or most of the time. EXHIBIT 1.

 

2.      I ceased parking in this car park around the end of 2023. The reasons being: I found it very stressful driving to work in rush hour traffic, and to add to this stress; I became anxious and fearful as I began to feel unsafe on my own in the carpark with such a lack of lighting. The carpark did not and as of December 2024 still did not have any of the lights on. (input recent photo of low-lit carpark as exhibit?) - I could not always park in a bay where it was most lit (from the street lights beside the carpark).

 

 

Defence

 

3.      On the date of the alleged breach, __/__/2023, I purchased a ticket which allowed me to park for up to 12 hours. I exited the car park after 9 hours (but before 10 hours had elapsed). The operator obtained the payment it sought for the hours parked - there was no loss. EXHIBIT 2.

 

4.      No legitimate interest (the ParkingEye v Beavis case is fully distinguished): There is no legitimate interest in pursuing a Defendant who paid in full. In a judgment in June 2024, His Honour Judge Pema (sitting at the County Court at Bradford) refused Excel Parking Services Ltd's attempt to appeal the decision in Case no. K4QZ4Y21 which the Defendant had won in similar circumstances to the extant claim, which involves the same Claimant. EXHIBIT 3.

 

5.      Referring to the Claimants witness statement of “failing to make payment for parking…”, ‘Exhibit 7, a copy of the PDT Log’ – (the record only displays the first 4 characters of a VRM, however,) the 3rd logged entry undeniably shows (the start of) my vehicles VRM, with a time that is close to the time on which is displayed on the ticket I purchased. This detrimental over-sight from the claimant has wasted the time of all parties involved, including the Courts. I respectfully request the Judge to consider striking out the claim for my points 3 & 4 (including corresponding exhibits) plus, this point (5) where the claimant has evidently proven that I paid. [Should I remove this sentence?]

 

6.      I draw the attention of the 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). I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators 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.

 

7.      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. EXHIBIT 4.

 

8.      The claimant cannot now seek to argue that their inadequate POC is due to limitations, including “a limited character count”. [Here, can I add Exhibit of Judge Humphreys at Basildon? That poc sounds extremely inadequate compared to the poc against me, but the Judgement also mentions that extra details of the poc could have been served separately ] Only after receiving the claimants WS and Exhibits, I know the claimant is pursuing me for ‘no payment made for VRM’ - These words from the claimants WS are specific and are of minimal characters, leading myself to believe, could have been inserted or substituted into the POC, rather than relying on a copy/paste wording and inappropriate phrases, “either/or”.

 

9.      Continuing with the claimants Witness Statement, Paragraph 26.iii, the claimant attempts to excuse their failure to fully comply with CPR 16.4 by asserting that the information provided in their Particulars of Claim were sufficient to make me aware of the nature of the claim. This is a feeble and unconvincing attempt to justify their non-compliance. Adding to this, the claimant questions my ability to submit a Defence with such detail if I believed the POC were so insufficient. I, the defendant without any legal background, completed and submitted a Defence to the best of my ability, trying to cover all basis in response to the incoherent POC.

 

10.   I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached.

 

11.   The claimants WS notes, “a term of the Contract: - … You must ensure the full & accurate Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) of the vehicle on site is provided when making payment…” - In the WS of the claimant, point 24 section xxi referring to their exhibit “It is clear that no payment was made for VRM (my postcode) ”. This is completely incorrect and displays a severe lack of attention of the claimant, which also questions the authenticity [-should I use a different word?] of the statement: the VRM quoted in this sentence is a postcode. The claimants Exhibit (PDT Log) relating to this point, for obvious reasons does not provide the mentioned VRM “postcode” because it is not a VRM. However, a correct VRM – my VRM, as I mentioned earlier, is displayed on the PDT Log.

 

12.   Another “term of the Contract” stated in the same section, and only in this section, “After a vehicle has entered the car park a maximum of 10 minutes is allowed the (to) purchase a valid ticket or make payment by phone or online”. I cannot recall a reason for a delay in myself purchasing a ticket on that unremarkable date in 2023 of the alleged breach [Should I mention my point number 2 here?]. However, with the claimants PDT Log showing a purchase for my VRM with a minute or so discrepancy to the time displayed on my ticket (EXHIBIT 2), I do question the timings between the entry camera and the ticket machine. The claimant has also provided the PDT log showing 7 payments of 7 different VRM’s at times between 07.42 & 08.19. If this term of the contract was in question, providing the PDT Log displaying these timings are senseless, as they provide payments made ranging (approx.) 40 minutes.

 

 

Lack of Evidence of Service

 

13.   The claimant has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), reminder notices, or any pre-action correspondence were properly served, as per the requirements of CPR 6.26. Simply producing copies of these documents is insufficient without proof of postage or delivery, and their failure to provide such proof severely undermines their claim.

 

14.   A breakdown of extra ‘costs’ has not been provided by the claimant, but merely a sentence regarding ‘time and materials’ have been spent to recover this supposed debt. I challenge that no costs have incurred.

 

15.   The claimants witness statement asserts, that I filed “a widely available templated Defence, rather than dealing with the substantive issues”, accusing that this is “disingenuous”. This is an unfounded personal attack. The claimant’s witness has no knowledge whatsoever of my level of education or capacity to understand legal matters. It is unprofessional and embarrassing that a legal professional would resort to such accusations and insults in an official court document. As a litigant in person, I am not expected to have the same legal expertise as the claimant’s witness. However, I have made every effort to research and present a reasonable defence. The claimant’s witness and solicitors, being professionals, should be held to a higher standard of compliance with legal procedures, especially with respect to the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

16.   I respectfully remind the court that I am a litigant in person. I have every right to research legal matters and use any available resources to present my defence, just as the claimant’s/witness/solicitors have evidently relied on templates for both their Particulars of Claim and Witness Statement. My defence is fully supported by relevant case law and legal principles, regardless of the method by which I prepared it.

 

17.   Furthermore, this unwarranted assertion, implying my avoidance of substantive issues and wasting time of all parties involved is designed to intimidate and belittle me. I believe this behaviour could be seen to violate the spirit of fair litigation and may amount to a breach of the Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, which requires the parties to act justly and fairly.

Le_Kirk

There are now two persuasive appeals, Chan & Akande; read this post and you will find a new link to Chan_Akande pdf

tiger_stripes

Le_Kirk said:

There are now two persuasive appeals, Chan & Akande; read this post and you will find a new link to Chan_Akande pdf

Thank you. Would I add a paragraph after point 7 which includes the decision in the Akande case and add a separate Exhibit? or should I mix it in with point 7? I don't understand how the wording should be, especially "..and then the other judgments and strike out Orders demonstrate the path.." - what other judgements?

Coupon-mad

You can copy and adapt this wording from the new Chan/Akande case defence:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

Your WS looks very good. Don't worry about whether you've used the right form of words. It reads really well!

Needs the usual ending about costs and your statement of truth, signature & date.

Le_Kirk

tiger_stripes said:

Le_Kirk said:

There are now two persuasive appeals, Chan & Akande; read this post and you will find a new link to Chan_Akande pdf

Thank you. Would I add a paragraph after point 7 which includes the decision in the Akande case and add a separate Exhibit? or should I mix it in with point 7? I don't understand how the wording should be, especially "..and then the other judgments and strike out Orders demonstrate the path.." - what other judgements?

When posters use the Judgments link rather than the Chan_Akande link, they use the words in the paragraph below the Chan_Akande link because the "other judgments" were not on appeal and therefore not persuasive but when using Chan_Akande, there is no need as explained in the post!

Coupon-mad

tiger_stripes said:

Le_Kirk said:

There are now two persuasive appeals, Chan & Akande; read this post and you will find a new link to Chan_Akande pdf

Thank you. Would I add a paragraph after point 7 which includes the decision in the Akande case and add a separate Exhibit? or should I mix it in with point 7?

What happened? Had the hearing yet?

Car1980

"Deadline to submit my WS & Evidence is early January! The hearing is 3 months after that."

Can't see this going to a hearing after Excel/VCS getting hammered in the media over their rogue time limit to pay rules.

If I was our defendant I'd get in touch with the BBC, or local news, to tell them you're in the same boat as the girl from the other week.

Coupon-mad

Good points well made. 

Didn't realise the hearing was so far in the future for this one!

Coupon-mad

tiger_stripes said:

It is for Failing to purchase a ticket and/or within the time allowed, on a date in November 2023.
I used to park in this private car park daily, and I have found the ticket I purchased which this claim is referring to. So I'm guessing this claim form is for not purchasing a ticket "within the time allowed" (which I think is 10 mins).

Your hearing is in April 2025, I think? Or have they discontinued yet (if yes, please show the NoD!).

Did you read that the '5 minute rule' that Excel are relying on for their doomed case against you was declared an unfair practice and banned last month?

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2025/02/private-parking-charges-five-minute-rule/

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6586172/news-on-the-5-minute-rule/p1

If not yet discontinued, send DCB Legal an email saying you'll seek full costs and will alert the Judge to the banning of the '5 minute rule'.