Support with Defence - Claim Form

Coupon-mad

Your facts are not going to be para 3.  Please re-read the Template Defence para 3 (bearing in mind what I already told you).

You even quoted the link to the alternative wording...

Francesca1734

Hi Coupon Mad,

Thank you for your support with this. To ensure I have understood correctly, I'll share my draft below. In this, the only point edited is 5. and then I continue with the wider defence claim from the template. Apologies for enquiring further and thank you for your support.


DRAFT 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(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. 

[Images from CHAN included here]

The facts 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

 5. The Defendant was a member of Pure Gym Bath, BA1 on the day of the alleged event (04/06/2023). The Defendant parked at Pure Gym Bath, BA1 on 04/06/2023, to use the gym’s facilities, as evidenced through the Pure Gym Bath phone application which shows member activity. The Defendant had parked multiple times at this facility before, with no PCN having been issued. The Defendant cannot recall having noticed any signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for us.  

[Follows on with complete template, 

6.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.

Through to point 33. with updated numbering.

Coupon-mad

Great! You got it.

Just a typo spotted:

"showing the terms and conditions for  us."  

Le_Kirk

In your para 5 you state the defendant parked; does that mean in para 4, you should state registered keeper and driver?  End of para 5, did you mean conditions for use  not conditions for us?

Francesca1734

Thank goodness for your kind support - I'm so grateful. 

I'll revise the typo in 5. and as Le_Kirk suggests, I'll add driver in para 4 also. 

Thank you, thank you!