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

Nijinsky

Coupon-mad said:

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).

Does this look alright?

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. The Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and are in such positions that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract and the Defendant denies any agreement to pay £100 or any sum at all. The signs in this car park are not at all prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. It is therefore possible to park and not be able to see any clear signage which complies with BPA requirements. Given this lack of clarity, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the "contra proferentem" principle. CP Plus Ltd T/A Groupnexus are required to show evidence to the contrary. 

Coupon-mad

Yes - but remove this which makes no sense for your case:

"Given this lack of clarity, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the "contra proferentem" principle. CP Plus Ltd T/A Groupnexus are required to show evidence to the contrary."

Nijinsky

Coupon-mad said:

Yes - but remove this which makes no sense for your case:

"Given this lack of clarity, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the "contra proferentem" principle. CP Plus Ltd T/A Groupnexus are required to show evidence to the contrary."

Thanks, so I will post the below 6 paragraphs to open, then copy and paste everything from your template from para #4 onwards and renumber the paragraphs, then the defence is ready?

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. The Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and are in such positions that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract and the Defendant denies any agreement to pay £100 or any sum at all. The signs in this car park are not at all prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. It is therefore possible to park and not be able to see any clear signage which complies with BPA requirements.

Coupon-mad

Yep.      

Nijinsky

My brother has sent the defence off on the court website, but it would only allow him to do 122 lines, so he's filled out a paper form and sent the print out as well.

He's put on the website, "you only allow me 122 lines and will not allow attachments, so I will send a paper copy as well".

He didn't consult me before doing this, so I'm just checking this is alright. He's sent the full defence by paper copy, so I'm hoping that will be fine?

Gr1pr

Definitely not 

It should have been emailed as explained in the newbies sticky thread and also in the defence template thread, both by coupon mad 

KeithP gave you both the correct instructions back on page one 

Nijinsky

Thanks, I will tell him to email the defence across as well.

KeithP

As mentioned, on 22 June at 2:56PM I wrote...

KeithP said:

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email...

See the words by email in there?

In the same post, that message was reinforced with...

KeithP said:

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website.

Why oh why don't people read the guidance freely given?

I guess in your case @Nijinsky, it's a case of Chinese whispers.
Why isn't your brother posting here? It's his predicament, not yours.

LDast

Nijinsky said:

Thanks, I will tell him to email the defence across as well.

"As well"????? 

If you or your brother or anyone has put so much as a full stop in the MCOL online defence box and submitted that, you/they have screwed up. Go back and re-read the Newbies/FAQ thread and please tell us absolutely nothing was submitted using the MCOL defence option.

Trainerman

Nijinsky said:

Thanks, I will tell him to email the defence across as well.

It might be a bit late for that.

Foot ...... shoot !