Dispute Resolution Hearing 26 March @ Huddersfield County Court NPML/Gladstones

skintbutwantstosave

The Driver drove into a private parking area (local shops) when collecting some food from a take away on the main road, after realising the massive signs, stating only customers can park, immediately drove out of the car park and parked on the pavement (double yellow lines) outside the takeaway.  Received claim form to say it was parked outside some beauty shop car park when the Driver never parked the car there, even if it did, it was less than 5 minutes.

Currently using the newbie thread draft template and also using the strike out paragraphs from the Harry thread to draft the Defence. The Car was never actually parked at the beauty shop, when in fact it was parked on the pavement on the main road, do I need to mention this or just state that the car was never parked in the beauty shop car park and the Claimant has not provided any evidence and they are put to strict proof? is there anything else you would recommend to include within the first couple of paragraphs of the Defence? Many thanks

Half_way

Was this on a private road or public? 
Do you have a Google maps location?

skintbutwantstosave

Half_way said:

Was this on a private road or public? 
Do you have a Google maps location?

312 A641 - Google Maps this is the location - this is an old image, but i was parked on the main road just after the bus stop on the double yellow lines. The car park where they said I was parked in private land, but clearly the pavement / road isnt. The banner which says Basma's is where the takeaway was, the shop where they said my car was parked is the blue money transfer

oldernonethewiser

What "evidence" have they used to support the claim that you parked? 

skintbutwantstosave

This is what I have written in the first few paragraphs. Please let me know if you need me to amend any of the wording. Also just to clarify, the Defendant (me) was not the driver at the time. 

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 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 Exhibit SA1) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

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.  

No keeper liability

5.      It is alleged the Defendant as the registered keeper parked at the Hair and Beauty Bar on 20 August 2023. The Claimant has not provided any evidence to support the same, accordingly the Claimant is put to strict proof.

 

6.      As the Claimant does not know the identity of the driver of the vehicle in question, it must be presumed that they are pursuing this claim against the registered keeper of the vehicle.

 

7.      The Claimant has failed to provide evidence that the vehicle was parked on relevant land pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as such they do not have any right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle.

 

8.      In the alternative, if it can be shown that the land in question is relevant land, the Claimant did not send a “Notice to Keeper” to the Defendant in time for it be delivered within the “relevant time period”, instead the Defendant received the Claim Form and sparse POC through the post.

 

9.      Attention is drawn to paras 34 - 36 of VCS vs Edward [2023] H0KF6C9C (the Edward case). In this case the claimant stated a “reasonable belief” that the registered keeper is the driver of a vehicle where the registered keeper has declined to identify who was driving. Here, in finding for the defendant, the judgement rejected the notion that declining to identify the driver produced any kind or inference that the registered keeper was the driver. I decline to identify who was driving the vehicle on the date detailed in the claimants POC.

 

10.      When appealing, through the claimant’s own process, upon first receiving their claim, the defendant made the same defence as above, namely that as the registered keeper they have no liability and declining to name the driver. It seems a reasonable conclusion that the claimant was aware there was no basis on which to pursue the defendant and poses the question whether the claimant acted in good faith in rejecting the defendants appeal and in their subsequent conduct in this matter.

skintbutwantstosave

oldernonethewiser said:

What "evidence" have they used to support the claim that you parked? 

I have received a claim form, other than the sparse POC within the claim form, nothing. I need to send the Defence of to Court by Monday. 

The car went into the little car park, when realising it was parking management type car park, left the car park and then parked on to the main road. 

LDast

Before you rush headlong into a hole of your own making, what is the "issue date" of the claim form? Please show us the PoC.

You haven't answered the question about what evidence do they have that you parked on private land?

Half_way

You said the vehicle entered the parking area, and immediately turned round, from there it then stopped outside a takeaway on the public road where an occupant of the vehicle collected something (takeaway) and then left - correct?

 Other than the claim letter, you should have received a parking charge notice with evidence showing that the vehicle was parked.

What have you received?

skintbutwantstosave

The claim was issue d on 14 June. The claim form was issued to my parents house, I don't live there. This Firm is aware of my new address. 

skintbutwantstosave

LDast said:

Before you rush headlong into a hole of your own making, what is the "issue date" of the claim form? Please show us the PoC.

You haven't answered the question about what evidence do they have that you parked on private land?

Hi  the claim was issued on 14 June 2024, I've posted the POC

BikingBud

skintbutwantstosave said:

n.b, unrelated National Parking Management company (Same law firm, gladstones) issued claim in October 2023 for a different car from an alleged parking offence in 2019 and as I defended that claim, they issued this claim knowing full well previous letters went to wrong address and I have subsequently moved, and all old letters went to my parents house. The law firm acknowledged my new address as they have been writing to me at the new address. so frustrating these pesky law firms/parking companies.

I love that people give PPCs and persecuting money grabbing "law" firms a hard life but how were they aware that this second claim with a different car and a different location and differing PPC and a differing allegation was with the same Registered Keeper?

If the PPC recover RK data from DVLA for differing VRNs how do you suppose they might tie them together?

• Request for Vehicle 1 data following first occurrence, returns recorded RK details for that VRN.
• Request for Vehicle 2 data following different occurrence, cannot be assumed to be anything other than DVLA recorded RK data for that VRN. 

I trust you advised DVLA of all changes to RK status for affected vehicles when you moved or disposed of them?

Is there some communication that you have not advised? Do you have evidence of direct notification of the change of RK address for the individual vehicles in response to the PPCs' Parking Charge Notice claims and to their legal representatives?