Premier Park Ltd Claim Form & Defence - Advice

SuperE20199

Hi all,

Hoping for some help on a claim form I've received from Premier Park & Gladstone Solicitors.

Issue Date: 1st October
Particulars of Claim:
 
I have followed the advice on here and done my AOS and now creating my defence using the template. I have drafted this below for you and would appreciate any advice:

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 transcript*

4.       The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the Defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

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.

6. It is unknown who the driver of the vehicle was on the dates of the claimed PCNs, given the PCNs date back to 2023 and the car park in question is used regularly for shopping by the defendants family.

7. The defendant does not recall receiving any pre-claim correspondence relating to the PCNs in question. 

8.     The Defendant does not recall being served with a compliant Notice to Keeper for these charges, that complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act ('POFA') 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule 4.  Outwith the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke 'keeper liability'.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 1st October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th November 2024 to file a Defence.

That's over three 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'.

SuperE20199

KeithP said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 1st October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th November 2024 to file a Defence.

That's over three 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'.

Thanks for this. Any comment on the actual defence? 

1505grandad

"6. It is unknown who the driver of the vehicle was on the dates of the claimed PCNs, given the PCNs date back to 2023..."

The PoC seem to suggest there is only one pcn.

SuperE20199

I guess my other question is what I will need to file as evidence, when/if it comes to that...?

Gr1pr

SuperE20199 said:

I guess my other question is what I will need to file as evidence, when/if it comes to that...?

That will be next year, so you will be studying other Witness Statement bundles on here at that time, in other threads 

Coupon-mad

SuperE20199 said:

I guess my other question is what I will need to file as evidence, when/if it comes to that...?

The a-f list of recommended evidence is in the second post of the NEWBIES thread, under the Witness Statement and exhibits section.

Your defence looks fine, subject to the tweak mentioned by @1505grandad

Le_Kirk

Have a look at this, which explains there are now TWO persuasive appeal judgments: -
15 August at 10:33AM <<<<LINK

SuperE20199

Le_Kirk said:

Have a look at this, which explains there are now TWO persuasive appeal judgments: -
15 August at 10:33AM <<<<LINK

Are these for the witness statement or the defence statement?

LDast

What is the actual "reason" given in the PoC? You have unnecessarily redacted that. The only thing that needs redacting in the PoC is the VRM.

SuperE20199

LDast said:

What is the actual "reason" given in the PoC? You have unnecessarily redacted that. The only thing that needs redacting in the PoC is the VRM.

All I redacted was the VRN and the location. The 'reason' is still on there.