Britannia Parking CNBC letter

Orange_Soda_Crew

Hellooo, 

I have received a letter today from the CNBC. I have already responded through Money Claim with an AoS. The issue date is 02/09/2024, I am struggling with the defence, as I have seen a few different versions of what I should copy and paste. Can you please help? 

Thanks

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 6th September, you have until 4pm on Friday 4th October 2024 to file a Defence.

That's four weeks 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'.

Coupon-mad

What letter have you received today?  The claim form itself?

Please show it, covering up the claim no., MCOL password and your data, QR Code and VRM.

Orange_Soda_Crew

This is the letter I received, apologies for the delay. 

KeithP

How are you getting on with compiling your Defence?

At the time of your last post you had four weeks to file a Defence.
You now have less than two weeks to do that.

Coupon-mad

'Parked Without Registering Vehicle at bar or reception'.  Daft reason.

Any Defendant could say they did by writing it down and handing it to the bar staff to input. Or even just verbally telling the bar staff. That's 'registering'.  They would be unable to prove breach. Not that it'll go to a hearing!

Very easy to defend.

Read ANY other DCB Legal claim thread!

Orange_Soda_Crew

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.

Images are on doc.

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. The Defendant does recall visiting the ... on 09/02/2024 for the purpose of taking an emergency call and ensuring the defendant and passengers comply with the law by pulling over in a safe location and maintaining road safety for all users.

6. The Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist.

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.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

The rest is 

Coupon-mad

Please don't post the whole template here. We don't need to check my homework!

That's also the wrong one.

Orange_Soda_Crew

Sorry, which one should I be using? 

Orange_Soda_Crew

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').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. 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.

5. The Defendant does recall visiting the ... on 09/02/2024 for the purpose of taking an emergency call and ensuring the defendant and passengers comply with the law by pulling over in a safe location and maintaining road safety for all users.

6. The Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist.

4. 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.

5. 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.

Is this alright?

 Renumbering required.

Coupon-mad

Was the PCN actually 'issued' on 9th Feb?

Or was 9th Feb the date of parking?

Where exactly (including postcode) was this car park and what 'bar' or 'reception' are they talking about? A pub?

Do not admit to taking a phone call.  Instead say you have seen no evidence that the vehicle was 'Parked Without Registering Vehicle at Bar or Reception' or that there was any such relevant obligation prominently signposted.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that the driver did not register (verbally, in writing or otherwise) the vehicle at an unidentified 'bar or reception'.