UK CPM GLADSTONES court claim SUCCESS

Nosy

Le_Kirk said:

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.

Are you saying I should remove paragraphs #5 to #9 and save for WS?  Paragraphs #10 onwards have not been changed from template

Coupon-mad

Just use what I linked and maybe one extra paragraph of facts. The rest can wait for WS stage.

You can see from the end of the Template Defence that you can always try to claim costs, if it gets as far as a hearing. No need for a counterclaim for costs.

Nellymoser

Please support/sign this petition demanding the re-launch of a Government-backed Parking Code of Practice. 🙏

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701453

Nosy

So this is what my defence looks like now.

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 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims and the extant PoCs seen here are far worse than the ones 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 authorities:

3.      Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) 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 Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4.      The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

 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 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 ANPR enabled car park where only one car can pass at a time. 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.

 After Para 6 in my defence the document follows the defence template from para 4 onwards.

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:

In the end of the template there no section to add costs, it ends with conclusion and signature.  do i just add a statement of costs before the signature?

Coupon-mad

Change this (below) because you weren't actually parked ((just stopped to try a futile attempt to use their machine and app) so it wasn't a parking session:

"for a 12 minute parking session where no contract had been formed."

Maybe replace with:

for a few minutes the Defendant wasted on trying to utilise the non-functioning payment methods before leaving. The Defendant had gained no amenity from the site and had not even parked and left the car, let alone entered into some purported 'parking contract'. Frustration of contract applies.  Further, the Defendant will also rely in the 'green button' section of the Court of Appeal authority in  National Car Parks v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 854 (20 May 2019).

Also tweak this:

7.      The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen

to

The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen (save for an arguable few pence but frustration of contract applies in a case like this, where a motorist was prevented from paying and left without accepting any contract)...

Nosy

I have updated so it looks like this now. 

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 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims and the extant PoCs seen here are far worse than the ones 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 authorities:

3.      Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) 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 Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4.      The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

 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 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 ANPR enabled car park where only one car can pass at a time. 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 few minutes the Defendant wasted on trying to utilise the non-functioning payment methods before leaving. The Defendant had gained no amenity from the site and had not even parked and left the car park, let alone entered into some purported 'parking contract'. Frustration of contract applies.  Further, the Defendant will also rely in the 'green button' section of the Court of Appeal authority in  National Car Parks v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 854 (20 May 2019).

7.      The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen (save for an arguable few pence but frustration of contract applies in a case like this, where a motorist was prevented from paying and left without accepting any contract) and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

Besides these paragraphs everything else from the template remains the same. Anyone think there is anything else i should add/amend?  I have two more days to submit 17th Jan

Coupon-mad

Looks ready to sign, date & email off. 

Nosy

Thanks printed as PDF with claim number as file title and emailed across to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Gr1pr

Check for the email auto response from the CNBC 

Nosy

yes, received thanks @Gr1pr