Parking Control Management UK Limited - Moorside Legal - CNBC Claim form

Le_Kirk

Yes, your sparse particulars of claim make it perfect for Chan & Akande. Follow the advice already given above you @Coupon-mad

StrollinthruLife

How's this? I've cleared all the unnecessary stuff out and amended. Still feels like I've missed a lot. Any suggestions massively appreciated. Hoping to submit it tomorrow seems as the deadline is on Monday

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxxx

Between

Parking Control Management UK

(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 are now two persuasive Appeal judgments 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. Two recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Ltd (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 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. 

CEL v CHAN transcript

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim' (transcript below).

CPMS v AKANDE transcript 

 

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 driver but not the registered keeper.

6. The Defendant formally contests the parking charge notice / POC. The Defendant parked in the residential car park at [location] on the day in question, not [other location] as stated in the particulars of claim. They hold a permit to park there and has held the permit since May 2021, The Defendant uses the car park daily. The Defendant has a right to park there. Also the Defendant states there is no road named [other location] as stated in the particulars of the claim and has never parked in said road.

 

REST OF TEMPLATE

Coupon-mad

Looks good now, as long as your actual PDF (once signed & dated) includes all pages of the 2 transcripts.

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  make sure the name of the claimant in the heading is as stated on the claim form.

StrollinthruLife

Coupon-mad said:

Looks good now, as long as your actual PDF (once signed & dated) includes all pages of the 2 transcripts.

Yes they are all in there, I removed on here only. Thank you so much

StrollinthruLife

1505grandad said:

A heads-up  -  make sure the name of the claimant in the heading is as stated on the claim form.

I'll double check that matches. Thank you

StrollinthruLife

Submitted my defence via email as advised in another thread, not on MCOL. Automated response received, expecting a response in 10 days. I'll be sure to update you all here

One question, what is the likelihood this will actually result in a court appearance?

Thank you all so much for your help

Coupon-mad

If Moorside (who are new in 2024) are copying the DCB Legal example, then pretty much zero chance of a hearing. Read @Umkomaas ongoing thread about discontinuances.

StrollinthruLife

Coupon-mad said:

If Moorside (who are new in 2024) are copying the DCB Legal example, then pretty much zero chance of a hearing. Read @Umkomaas ongoing thread about discontinuances.

Glad to hear that. I’ll definitely give that a read to put my mind at rest. 

StrollinthruLife

Ok seems like the ball is rolling. I received a letter from the court acknowledging receipt of my defence. And today I received a letter from Moorside Legal stating ‘we have considered your defence and our client is satisfied that you are liable for the full amount and we urge you to make payment as soon as possible’. They also included a copy of their Directions Questionnaire which they have filed with the court. 

Is this just more scaremongering? I will be standing my ground!