PCM UK LTD / MOORSIDE LEGAL CLAIM

Coupon-mad

Re the wording to add for Akande, just search the forum for it. That wording is everywhere.

MrTottenham123

Good Afternoon All, hope you had a great festive period and new years! I have finally got round to completing my defence and would kindly request for your opinions for any changes to be made: 

"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. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande would indicate the POC fails to comply with 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.

CHAN TRANSCRIPT HERE

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim' (transcript below).

AKANDE TRANSCRIPT HERE

The facts 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. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 01/03/2022" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

7.  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.

Rest of the template to follow of course, but let me know if there are any changes to be made. I've not added in any defence in regards to where I was parked and what I was doing there, as I've included paragraph 6 as per @Gr1pr advice and been as vague as possible following what they've provided me in their POC. 

Thanks,

Luke

Le_Kirk

In your paragraph #7 did you mean PD 16.3

1505grandad

As para 3 refers to TWO appeals perhaps the following para should be amended accordingly:-

" 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 ....."

Coupon-mad

I finalised this the other day:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

HTH

MrTottenham123

Thanks all for the responses, I shall get my defence amended as per @Coupon-mad link to the updated version and as you have advised.

Out of curiosity, what’s the best way to complete this part without actually admitting to too much and giving them ammo? Lol. (6. Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)

Do I simply advise I was parked in the location whilst attending the gym opposite, where other multiple gym users were parked? Obviously not going to mention the faded yellow box junction they had, just want to be careful as I don’t want to admit or give them any ammo they don’t need. 

Obviously their POC is very vague, so can I just leave this paragraph completely or just added a one liner to say why I was parked there. Thanks! 

Coupon-mad

Say what the Template Defence tells you to put for para 3 but in your case it'll be para 6.

MrTottenham123

Just to confirm this is para 3 from the updated defence and I should put this as my para 6? 

"3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) 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 Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4." 

If so should I keep my original para 6 in the defence as well or get rid? 

"6. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 01/03/2022" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations."

Only because in the updated defence para 4 follows on from para 3. So if I was to move this down in my defence to para 6, then it might not make sense.

Thanks

MrTottenham123

Le_Kirk said:

In your paragraph #7 did you mean PD 16.3

I copied this from one of the templates, what would be the correct here? PD 16.3 or 16PD3? As I note in para 2 it mentions 16PD3. Just so I can ensure I'm putting the correct one 

Le_Kirk

MrTottenham123 said:

Le_Kirk said:

In your paragraph #7 did you mean PD 16.3

I copied this from one of the templates, what would be the correct here? PD 16.3 or 16PD3? As I note in para 2 it mentions 16PD3. Just so I can ensure I'm putting the correct one 

Go with what is in the template - ignore my comments!