DCB Legal Claim

blspuds

Hi all,

Sorry and thanks for pointing this out - correct email addy Claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk

Transcript to send over (will sort formatting)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  

Between

ParkingEye Ltd

(Claimant)

- and -  

(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

[INSERTED 4 CEL V CHAN TRANSCRIPT PICS]

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 but not the driver.

5. The Defendant’s car was used by a learner driver for 20 minutes to practice parking manoeuvres in an empty college car park on a Saturday. 

6. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the vehicle was used in the car park, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.

 7. It was only upon a subsequent revisit to the area that several critical facts about the signage were established. The signs were at an elevated position with very small font, making them difficult to read.

Then the remaining paragraphs from the template starting with 

8. 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:

Etcetc

Thanks BLSpuds

Coupon-mad

Typo - no such verb:

to practice 

blspuds

ok thanks, have changed:

5. The Defendant’s car was used by a learner driver for 20 minutes whilst practising parking manoeuvres in an empty college car park on a Saturday. 

And apologies for the underlining above - must have continued from the email address. 

Coupon-mad

Much better.

Le_Kirk

You could also add CPMS v Akande that was similarly thrown out on appeal by HHJ Evans and is in the 
Judgments link

blspuds

Thanks both. much appreciated. 

Would it be preferable to add the CPMS v Akande case too? 

Im not sure how id reference this case though?

The Cel v Chan starts with this - 

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

Would it be referenced in here too? 

Thanks :-) 

1505grandad

Just a thought:-

".....

the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver."

However you state:-

"

6. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the(sic) where the vehicle was used in the car park, showing the terms and conditions for use."

As the contract (signs) is with the driver the fact that the Defendant did not notice the contract is therefore irrelevant.

Suggest alter as follows?:-

"

6. Any signage was not noticed close to where the vehicle was used in the car park showing the terms and conditions for use."

blspuds

Good point, have changed.

Cheers

Coupon-mad

blspuds said:

Thanks both. much appreciated. 

Would it be preferable to add the CPMS v Akande case too? 

Im not sure how id reference this case though?

The Cel v Chan starts with this - 

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

Would it be referenced in here too? 

Thanks :-) 

Yes of course. Done hundreds of times in the forum. Search! That's how the forum works.

Le_Kirk

blspuds said:

3. A Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande 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 first 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 to CPR 3.4.  In the second case on [Date], HHJ Evans......

Maybe adjust as above then take some words from the judgment to introduce it