CCJ set aside, need to submit defence. Template query.

WarCharManLton

Hello, 

Quick run down of where we’re up too. 

• Two parking tickets were issued to old address 2023

• Became aware of the matter May of this year with CCJ and demand of fee

• Applied to set aside judgment (without consent)

• Had the court date (Where the claimant (PE) sent a pretty snooty letter to the court and the judge was not very happy; they were also supposed to send this letter to us, but we never received it)

• Judgment was set aside, fee’s granted to us and we’ve been asked to put in a defence. 

The set aside case was a bit of a blur to be honest but believe it was ruled in our favour under CPR 13.3 with the cost of the hearing granted back to us. We were then asked to send our defence into the court and also the claimant with a deadline of a few weeks. (We’ve still got plenty of time but would like to get it in promptly) 

I was hoping for some clarification that the defence we are to use is in the post “Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2024” or is this something different?

To specify, this is hospital parking tickets with PE. The defendant was transporting a blue badge holder on both occasions with the badge on display.

Thank you for any advice.

KeithP

WarCharManLton said:

I was hoping for some clarification that the defence we are to use is in the post “Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2024” or is this something different?

Yes, use that as a basis for your Defence.

Coupon-mad

Was the claim filed by ParkingEye themselves (not DCB Legal)?

Did PEye add £20 or £25 to the claim?  If you don't know because you never saw the claim form you need to ring the CNBC and ask for "a copy of the Claim Particulars" by immediate email.

NOT A COPY OF THE CLAIM FORM.

You need the POC to defend!

The template can be adapted if some bits talk about adding £70. PEye add less.

WarCharManLton

We do have the POC

Claimant: PARKINGEYE LTD

Claimant solicitor: DCB LEGAL LTD (XXXX)

Telephone: 

Reference: 

Judgment amount: £ 404.82

Particulars of claim: 1. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE(S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE XXXXXX AT XXXX HOSPITAL XXX. 2. THE PCN(S) WERE ISSUED ON xx/xx/2023, xx/xx/2023. 3. THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE FOR BREACH OF THE TERMS ON THE SIGNS (THE CONTRACT). REASON:VEHICLE REMAINEDON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN BREACH OF THE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 4. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE KEEPER PURSUANT TO POFA 2012, SCHEDULE 4. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £280 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PCN(S) AND DAMAGES. 2. INTEREST AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 FROM THE DATE HEREOF AT A DAILY RATE OF £.05 UNTIL JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. 3. COSTS AND COURT FEES

Coupon-mad

Oh good, DCB Legal are much easier to beat and will likely discontinue the claim.

Have they paid your fee yet?

They have also added the false £70 x 2 debt recovery fee (a false sum because ParkingEye never paid DCB a fee) to artificially exaggerate what would have been just 2 x £70 PCNs.

The POC also fails to state the breach so you will know (when you read the Template Defence third paragraph) to use the ALTERNATIVE version linked there.

WarCharManLton

No not yet, they've got got some time before they have to pay.

Ah yeah, thanks for clarifying, we were the in the process of putting it together and were using the alternative to version as we thought that was the case but weren't sure. 

In regards to citing another case in a defence, do you attach it as an extra PDF or would it be acceptable to use screen shots within the defence itself? 

Coupon-mad

Screenshots within, for Chan.

Later you can attach it and other judgments as a PDF at WS stage (if not struck out early!).

WarCharManLton

So our defence is as follows. Bold Italics is notes for this post. After section seven the defence follows from Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure... as per template. 

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXXXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

Claim No.:  XXXXXXXXX

Between

PARKINGEYE LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXX XXXX XXXX    

 (Defendant)

_________________

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. 

(Attached here are the screen shots from the Judgement)

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 and driver.

5. On both dates stated in the POC xx/xx/2023 and xx/xx/2023 the defendant was parked at XXXX Hospital. On both of the dates the defendant was transporting their elderly grandmother Mrs xxxx xxxx. At the time the defendant was the registered carer of Mrs x. xxxx who was in possession of a valid blue badge.  The Defendant has attached evidence to support this statement please see Appendix A. 

(Appendix A Includes appointment letters for the drivers Grandmother, Defendants driving licence showing relation and address to said Grandmother, Grandmothers valid Blue Badge dated prior to the PCN(s), Proof of Universal credit claim for carer's allowance for driver and an email from the Hospital showing that they would have cancelled the PCN(s) if they had been given the opportunity to do so.)

6. 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.

7. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by Parking

Coupon-mad

No evidence goes with a defence. No appendix at this early stage. Evidence comes later; see the NEWBIES thread 2nd post, re WS stage.

Le_Kirk

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

I know the original @hharry100 defence states those words but if you follow the post here: -
15 August at 10:33AM <<<<LINK you will find there are now two judgments to which to refer.

WarCharManLton

So in response to @Coupon-mad section 5 would be changed thusly. Omitting the last line referring to an appendix.

5. On both dates stated in the POC xx/xx/2023 and xx/xx/2023 the defendant was parked at XXXX XXXX Hospital. On both of the dates the defendant was transporting their elderly grandmother Mrs XXXX XXXX. At the time the defendant was the registered carer of Mrs X. XXXX who was in possession of a valid blue badge.

...and in response to @Le_Kirk section 2 would be changed like this? 

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are now two persuasive Appeal judgments to support striking out the claim (with the rest of the paragraph unchanged)