Claim Form help (Motorway Services)

ParallelCircle

I have looked through the guidance in filling out the claim form and emailing back to the court in Northampton but am wondering if my situation is different at all. I am lost in some of the wording and wonder if it is relevant to my case or if I should just use it all; except of course the editing of parts that are specific to my situation.

My situation was that I stopped at a Roadchef motorway services in order to rest as I was very tired. I was unsure how long I slept for but knew it was longer than the 30mins I planned and so upon seeing the nearby signage that said to pay via NexusPay (Group Nexus app) I downloaded that app. The app gave errors of which I have screenshots so I was unable to pay this way. My presumption was either the app was temporarily not working or the lack of reception for my phone gave a bad connection). Thinking it likely I wasn't over the time limit and that I could check with the app later anyway (as they use ANPR), I left.

Later that evening upon checking the app it was still not working and I gave up.

When the parcking charge came I contested it, told them my reasons for stopping (tiredness) and that I had tried to check/pay with the app but it was not functioning. I also sent them the screenshots to show the error.

After this they said they did not accept my reasons and that they have adequate signs etc etc and I have to pay.

I did not pay and started to receive debt collection company letters and then the Claim Form I now have.

Is my situation any different or can I use that template basically as is, just with the addition of what I have said above?

Thank you so much for your help.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with personal detail hidden of course.

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so? Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

LDast

Jeremy Bowens brother, a KC, defended himself for a PCN under exactly the same circumstances: https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/08/parking-company-sues-top-qc-loses/amp/

Not_A_Hope

Keep those screenshots of the app not working as evidence you tried to pay and their system failed. As a result of the ‘frustration of contract’ any judge should find in your favour if the PPC choose to take this to a hearing.

Coupon-mad

I have looked through the guidance in filling out the claim form and emailing back

You aren't filling out any claim form/attachments.

ParallelCircle

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with personal detail hidden of course.

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so? Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Thank you very much for responding!

Date on the form is 26 June 2024

I filled out the AoS on 8 July 2024

I have attached a photo of the Particulars of Claim

Le_Kirk

Rubbish POC, use the @hharry100 defence.

LDast

Whilst this may come as a shock or surprise to some of the forum regulars, the following is the suggested method to get this dealt with as advised by a district judge who deals with these claims on a daily basis:

1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PofC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PofC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a)

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PofC because: 

  (i) The contract referred to is not attached to the PofC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3;

  (ii) The PofC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

  (iii) The PofC do not set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);

  (iv) The PofC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

  (v) The PofC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated.

  (vi) The PofC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages.

  (vii) The PofC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action. 

4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.

This is the wording of the order made at another court which the judge will hopefully issue to the claimant:

Before District Judge [Name] on [Date]

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence

AND the court being of the view that there is a lack of precise detail in the particulars of claim in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the defendant such that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a)

Order

1. Unless the Claimant do by 4pm on (insert a date here 14 days from typing the order) file at court a further particulars of claim which complies with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and which sets out:

(i) the precise and concise factual allegations it makes against the Defendant and

(ii) the factual or legal [or both] basis of its claim and

(iii) exactly how its claim is calculated (if there is a claim for a fixed sum)

then the claim shall be struck out.

1. For the avoidance of doubt the further particulars of claim must refer to and have attached to them the contract (or contracts) between the claimant and defendant relied on [marked "A"] and must set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on.
2. For the avoidance of doubt the further particulars of claim must, in respect of each and every alleged breach of contract, set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
3. For the avoidance of doubt the further particulars of claim must, in respect of each and every alleged breach of contract, set out the full postal address of where the breach took place, the precise date and time of the alleged breach, and exactly how long it is alleged that the defendant had parked his/her/its/their vehicle before the parking charge was incurred
4. For the avoidance of doubt the further particulars of claim must set out a precise calculation of any claim for statutory interest up to the date of issue to include the date when it is said that interest started running.
5. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by an application on notice which must be filed at this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.

There may be a few tweaks to come. The argument being that most judges want an easy life and presenting them with a boilerplate defence that they are not going to bother reading through is not the way forward. The above, "simple" defence is much more likely to be read and acted on, especially as an order is already provided for guidance. I don't think that any claimant has successfully completed the order to date and none have applied to have it set aside.

In this way, it means the claimant has to work on the case - otherwise it will be struck out and they hate to work on a case. All they want to do is produce a load of word processed rubbish.

KeithP

ParallelCircle said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with personal detail hidden of course.

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so? Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Thank you very much for responding!

Date on the form is 26 June 2024

I filled out the AoS on 8 July 2024

I have attached a photo of the Particulars of Claim

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.
Particularly this bit...

So it is alleged that the driver 'breached the terms on the signs (the contract)'.

And that allegation is then repeated - 'Reason: Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions'.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

With a Claim Issue Date of 26th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 29th July 2024 to file a Defence.

That's over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

ParallelCircle

Thank you so much for your responces and making things easy for me to follow!

Coupon-mad

LDast said:

Whilst this may come as a shock or surprise to some of the forum regulars, the following is the suggested method to get this dealt with as advised by a district judge who deals with these claims on a daily basis:

1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PofC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PofC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a)

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PofC because: 

  (i) The contract referred to is not attached to the PofC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3;

  (ii) The PofC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

  (iii) The PofC do not set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);

  (iv) The PofC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

  (v) The PofC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated.

  (vi) The PofC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages.

  (vii) The PofC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action. 

4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.

This is the wording of the order made at another court which the judge will hopefully issue to the claimant:

Before District Judge [Name] on [Date]

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence

AND the court being of the view that there is a lack of precise detail in the particulars of claim in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the defendant such that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a)

Order

1. Unless the Claimant do by 4pm on (insert a date here 14 days from typing the order) file at court a further particulars of claim which complies with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and which sets out:

(i) the precise and concise factual allegations it makes against the Defendant and

(ii) the factual or legal [or both] basis of its claim and

(iii) exactly how its claim is calculated (if there is a claim for a fixed sum)

then the claim shall be struck out.

1. For the avoidance of doubt the further particulars of claim must refer to and have attached to them the contract (or contracts) between the claimant and defendant relied on [marked "A"] and must set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on.
2. For the avoidance of doubt the further particulars of claim must, in respect of each and every alleged breach of contract, set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
3. For the avoidance of doubt the further particulars of claim must, in respect of each and every alleged breach of contract, set out the full postal address of where the breach took place, the precise date and time of the alleged breach, and exactly how long it is alleged that the defendant had parked his/her/its/their vehicle before the parking charge was incurred
4. For the avoidance of doubt the further particulars of claim must set out a precise calculation of any claim for statutory interest up to the date of issue to include the date when it is said that interest started running.
5. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by an application on notice which must be filed at this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.

There may be a few tweaks to come. The argument being that most judges want an easy life and presenting them with a boilerplate defence that they are not going to bother reading through is not the way forward. The above, "simple" defence is much more likely to be read and acted on, especially as an order is already provided for guidance. I don't think that any claimant has successfully completed the order to date and none have applied to have it set aside.

In this way, it means the claimant has to work on the case - otherwise it will be struck out and they hate to work on a case. All they want to do is produce a load of word processed rubbish.

But this is too risky IMHO.

I don't think @ParallelCircle should use it.

My initial concerns are:

- the 'new' (Judge suggested) short defence seems not to offer any defence WHATSOEVER to even the sparsest allegations. If you don't plead it you can't be heard to say it at the hearing. Excel won an appeal recently which made that point and overturned a win (I'm not on X but I was told by @kryten3000 thaf
they tweeted about it, bragging);

- there is a huge danger of new posters using it inappropriately, in a case that IS properly pleaded (e.g. ParkingEye claims), thus leaving those defendants 'in a dark brown stretch of water with no visible means of propulsion' as @bargepole likes to say.

This is why I only provide the hharry version as an alternative defence. I could have changed the template defence when CEL v Chan came along but deliberately didn't.

Arguing on one point like this relies on all Judges agreeing with your friendly Judge and in any case, it isn't suitable for all parking cases and leaves Defendants with no idea what to put in a WS, either.