PCM UK LTD / MOORSIDE LEGAL CLAIM

Coupon-mad

MrTottenham123 said:

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." 

No.

What you've forgotten is that your one is bespoke and that version ISN'T the usual 'Template defence'.

As I said:

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

MrTottenham123

Coupon-mad said:

MrTottenham123 said:

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." 

No.

What you've forgotten is that your one is bespoke and that version ISN'T the usual 'Template defence'.

As I said:

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

Sorry i was just getting confused with my para 6 as like you said this is more of a bespoke version. 

As per @Gr1pr advice he referred me to https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6530301/civil-enforcement-fine/p5

and therefore I put my para 6 as: 

“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” 

Should I keep this in or remove it? If I’m removing it, then I’m struggling what to write for my para 6. As I don’t want to admit too much or give them any ammo to use against me. Do I just write to advise that I was parked there whilst attending the gym or? 

Coupon-mad

Now you have got it!  Yes. Job done!

MrTottenham123

FINAL DRAFT

"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 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. 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 authorities:

 

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.

 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

- BOTH TRANSCRIPTS HERE -

The facts known to the Defendant:

 

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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."

The rest of the defence to follow and paragraphs to be renumbered correctly. All good to submit? 

Coupon-mad

Yep, by email as per the first 12 steps.

MrTottenham123

Defence emailed and automated response recevied. Onto the next steps

MrTottenham123

Letter received as per the attached, confirming receipt of my defence. Nothing else to be done now until the Directions Questionnaire is received if I’m following the steps correctly? 

Assuming if the claimant contacts me direct I don’t answer or simply decline any resolution? 

Thank you!

MrTottenham123

Afternoon all, just received the below letter from Moorside legal assuming trying to get me to settle pre trial and to also give me some pointers in regards to my defence.

Their completed claims questionnaire was attached to the back but I haven’t received mine to date (as per claims procedure guide in the forum).

What do we think of their response? Another scare tactic maybe? As realistically a lot of people use the internet, chat gbt etc to file their defence and also use this to obtain case law related to their claim.

Would be good to obtain your thoughts on their points mate within this letter and whether anything further needs to be done on my end.

thanks! 

ChirpyChicken

Letter is irrelevant 
Fill in n180 and email it to the court .

Gr1pr

We dont tend to have any thoughts on the letters issued by those Legal companies,  usually irrelevant templated letters,  or anything in them, we ignore them like you intimated earlier and as the 12 steps mentions too

Earlier you mentioned doing nothing until the DQ stage 

As mentioned above,  download the N180, fill it in and email it to the DQ email address