CP Plus Ltd T/A Groupnexus County Court Claim Form Defence

Nijinsky

Gr1pr said:

Nijinsky said:

The rest of the defence is KeithP's template,

plus points 3, 4, 6 and 7 were from hharry100's defence. Can I simply right click and save the images for the Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan case in hharry100's defence, or is it available as a link to download?

I don't believe that Keithp has provided a template , I know that coupon mad has, plus there is an alternative defence for woeful POC that includes the chan case, typically seen in any defence based on the hharry100 exemplar 

Apologies - it was coupon-mad's template I used.

KeithP says further up the thread that nowhere in the particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

Coupon-mad's template states if the claim doesn't state what the breach was, add the paragraphs and judgments seen in the defence by hharry100's defence.

So I have done point 5 myself, used the whole 30 points in coupon-mad's template without changing anything and added hharry100's first few paragraphs for points 3, 4, 6 and 7.

Coupon-mad

Please can you delete the post that has the entire Template Defence showing, as it's bulking out your thread and because most of us have no time to look at such a long post, unnecessarily.

I don't need to check the template I wrote.  And I haven't read your defence yet I'm afraid, because it's late and I'm skim-reading. The long post (that you were asked please not to do) put me off.

But what is confusing me is that you say you've "added points 3,4, 6 and 7".

The link I provide to the hharry100 thread takes you directly to a post by me which gives you the order of paragraphs already.

Nothing needs adding except your facts para 5.  Like it says in the link.  Please do just that and show us only the first 6 paragraphs.

LDast

Another OP that has not put the Preliminary Matter as a preliminary matter!

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 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.

Nijinsky

Thanks for the clear explanation LDast and apologies for my long post coupon-mad, I've just deleted it.

I'm back in work today, but I will follow LDast's guide to post just the first 6 paragraphs later this evening.

Nijinsky

First 6 paragraphs. Have I put enough detail in paragraph 6? I notice hharry100 added additional paragraphs about not noticing the unclear signage and Money Claims Online's character limit. Is it worth adding those 2 paragraphs on to paragraph 6, or are these 6 paragraphs sufficient before going back to the original template from #4 onwards?

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.

4 images of the CEL v Chan transcript.

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.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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 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 and driver.

6. The Defendant remembers on the day in question, his car overheated while travelling to work and he had to pull into the Roadchef Magor Services.  The Defendant continued to work from that location using his laptop, while waiting for his car to cool down.  When the Defendant felt his car had cooled down enough so he could continue his journey, he left Roadchef Magor Services. The Defendant then received a PCN charge by post a few weeks later.

Coupon-mad

I notice hharry100 added additional paragraphs about not noticing the unclear signage and Money Claims Online's character limit. 

I don't know why you read his defence. That wasn't needed. The link in the Template Defence takes you directly to a post by ME which, as I advised you earlier, gives you the paragraphs you need.

That's all you need to look at.

I don't understand why some posters don't click on the link provided, to my post within his thread.  You aren't required to read his thread.

Nijinsky

Coupon-mad said:

I notice hharry100 added additional paragraphs about not noticing the unclear signage and Money Claims Online's character limit. 

I don't know why you read his defence. That wasn't needed. The link in the Template Defence takes you directly to a post by ME which, as I advised you earlier, gives you the paragraphs you need.

That's all you need to look at.

I don't understand why some posters don't click on the link provided, to my post within his thread.  You aren't required to read his thread.

Alright, so I won't add anything extra from his defence and I will just stick to the first 6 paragraphs I've just posted (which are hopefully alright?) then copy the rest of your original template from #4 onwards?

Coupon-mad

I'm still confused because the link to my post in hharry's thread has facts at para 5, not 6.

Nijinsky

Coupon-mad said:

I'm still confused because the link to my post in hharry's thread has facts at para 5, not 6.

LDast suggested adding another preliminary matter for para 4 after the CEL v Chan case. This is an extra paragraph, so the facts paragraph jumps from para 5 to para 6. Shall I remove para 4 to avoid confusion, so I just have the 5 paragraphs you've posted in hharry's thread?

Coupon-mad

Ahh no that's fine. I see that now.

Leave it but add to 6 a denial of any agreement to pay £100 or any sum at all, and it is denied that any parking terms signs were visible from where you parked or walked into the premises (assuming you worked inside).