UK CPM GLADSTONES court claim SUCCESS

Coupon-mad

Nosy said:

Coupon-mad said:

You've only redacted 3 things.

Search the forum for:

Chan Akande denied persuasive defence

Have redacted properly now and also filed acknowledgement of service yesterday.

I have searched the forum for Chan Akande denied persuasive defence and found a few posts related to Chan Akande but not the diect post/defence. Is there a specific defence you would advise to use which is similar to my case? 

Nope, just any recent Gladstones case defence.  Always change the search filter to NEWEST.

Please show the POC again as it's gone.

Nosy

sure, here it is

Coupon-mad

But that's still the version with the unique password showing.

Nosy

Oops  sorry i have edited and reattached. 

Coupon-mad

OK. Copy a Gladstones case defence from recent weeks.  One with Chan and Akande.

Nosy

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').

2.      Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out
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. 

  

 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 evening of November 2023 the defendant stopped in a car park for 12 minutes. The Defendant entered the area to enquire at a child’s soft play centre and upon entering the small site the Defendant drove in to the car park. The Defendant recalls the area of the building being a small area where it is difficult for cars to make a U-Turn unless the driver drives is very confident or drives in to the car park located behind the building of the Soft Play Centre.

6.      The Defendant does not recall seeing any clearly visible signs prior to entering the car park. The Defendant recalls the entrance to the car park being very tight where once car can only enter or exit. After The Defendant entered the car park, the Defendant found a place to park and after parking the Defendant searched for a pay machine and signs. The defendant then went to view the sign and terms of parking. The signboard displayed within the car park as not clear and was very difficult to read, and in the dark it was even more difficult to read. The was no/little lighting near the signs and the Defendant decided to go in to the building for assistance on how to pay for parking.

7.      The Defendant then went in to the soft play canter to discuss how parking needs to be paid for and was told the car park has nothing to do with the business and it uses online payments only via an app. Due to the poor mobile network in the area the Defendant struggled to download the app to pay for parking and decided to move the car out of the car park.

8.      The claimant has confirmed that the car park uses ANPR technology and also confirmed that the Defendant’s vehicle was parked within the car park for a total of 12 Minutes.

9.      Within these 12 Minutes the Defendant entered the car park, found a place to stop, walked to the signboard, tried to read the T&C’s of parking, asked the soft play centre for help (whom the Defendant initially thought was the owner/manager of the car park), tried to download an app, then walked back to the car and drove out the car park. The claimant is pursuing the Defendant to pay a total of £268.50 (including fees) for a 12 minute parking session where no contract had been formed.

10.   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:

a.      (i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

b.      (Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

Nosy

Above is the draft of my defense. I used the template from the newbies thread. Your thoughts and feedback would be appreciated.. 

Also for the Chan judgement should this be included in the body of my defense or as an appendix?

Coupon-mad

Neither.

And you want Chan and Akande, like this at the start, then with the rest of the Template Defence (re-numbered to suit) but please don't show the whole Template to us again...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

You not seeing a counterclaim angle this time? You are a legend for your counterclaim success!

Le_Kirk

Read this 15 August 2024 at 9:33AM and use the new link for Chan_Akande.  As you have editing privileges can you remove all of your defence apart from paragraph #10 to end.  Also consider your paragraphs #5 to #9 as they are more suited to a witness statement, which comes later in the process.  When reposting your draft defence with Chan and Akande only post those paragraphs that you have edited or added.  We don't need to check the template provided by @Coupon-mad, we know it is correct!  Of course, when sending it by e-mail to CNBC you use ALL of it.

Nosy

Coupon-mad said:

Neither.

And you want Chan and Akande, like this at the start, then with the rest of the Template Defence (re-numbered to suit) but please don't show the whole Template to us again...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

You not seeing a counterclaim angle this time? You are a legend for your counterclaim success!

Will check out the link you sent and redo the defence.

I  have edited the post to only show what I have added/changed. 

Thinking about counterclaiming but as I did not respond to Gladstones at any time, I am thinking of not counterclaiming. However this is all causing me alot of stress and distress and taking up a lot of time. Can I ask for these costs to be paid to me if I win or is a counterclaim required?