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

Coupon-mad

But you'd need to add the words about Akande as well.

Le_Kirk

...........and if you follow my links you will find those words written by @Coupon-mad

WarCharManLton

Hey both, sorry I want to get this right. 

Following the links to your thread(s), I can only see this from @Coupon-mad

People can just say in their WS that the first two transcripts are both persuasive appeal judgments, and then the other judgments and strike out Orders demonstrate the path taken by many District Judges in the English Courts since 2023, fully aligning with the findings by His Honour Judge Murch (Luton) and Her Honour Judge Evans (Manchester).

Where would we add this paragraph above as I can't see where this would fit, or do we need to copy paragraph 3 (Chan) and change the details to those of Akande (Ref. No, Judge name, Date of judgement) adding the transcript. 

Coupon-mad

Whatever makes sense to make it flow!

I think templates are horrendous and unnecessary BTW and really believe everyone should write their own WS.  Far better for the Judge who wants a submission written by the signatory.

I resisted writing the Template Defence (and template PCN appeal) for years and I never use them myself when I help relatives. 

WarCharManLton

Hello again. Just clearing something up, when you say everyone should write their own WS you're referring to Witness Statement? Which is not this, this is a defence correct? Just checking that we're talking about the same thing. 

If we were to write out own template from scratch we no doubt would have missed much of this stuff but I understand your point for sure.

Below I've added a section for Akande. 

I feel like there isn't enough information about our defence in section 6 but also aware that we need to keep it clear and concise.

Thank you again for all your help so far. 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

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 (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. The first 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. 

(Insert Chan Transcript)

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Akande judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

 (Insert Akande Transcript)

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. 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. 

7. 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.

8. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good! At the end of para 2 change it to 'authorities'.

And yes I meant WS (and ideally defences) but we got so overwhelmed with court claim help needed that a template defence made sense.

yinadvice

WarCharManLton said:

Hello again. Just clearing something up, when you say everyone should write their own WS you're referring to Witness Statement? Which is not this, this is a defence correct? Just checking that we're talking about the same thing. 

If we were to write out own template from scratch we no doubt would have missed much of this stuff but I understand your point for sure.

Below I've added a section for Akande. 

I feel like there isn't enough information about our defence in section 6 but also aware that we need to keep it clear and concise.

Thank you again for all your help so far. 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

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 (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. The first 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. 

(Insert Chan Transcript)

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Akande judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

 (Insert Akande Transcript)

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. 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. 

7. 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.

8. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Hello, I am in the same situation, I am just wondering where you can find the transcripts!
Thanks

Coupon-mad

They are on the forum somewhere. Search!