Parking Control Management - Claim defence (Successful)

massop

Good evening all,

Here we go again...

I have just received a Claim form from PCM, I have already submitted my AOS online so that should give me time to sort this out.

Below is the POC from them on the claim form
---
1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant(C) for a parking charge issued to the vehicle REGNUMBER at Hotel shared parking location

2.The PCN was issued on day/03/2022 on land managed by C

3.The Vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on C's signs (the contract), thus incurring the PCN

4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests the PCN is outstanding and has escalated.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. 170.00 being the total PCN
2. Costs and court fees

The Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 16/05/2022 to 12/11/2024 on £170.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.04
---


Below is my chosen defence

IN THE COUNTY COURT

 

Claim No.:  XXX

 

Between

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited

 

(Claimant)

  

- and –

 

NAME

 

(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'). The Defendant cannot even tell from the POC what they are said to have done wrong. The allocating Judge is respectfully invited to strike out the claim on that basis.

 

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 judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande would indicate the POC fails to comply with 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.

 

ADD CEL VS CHAN CASE HERE

 

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).

 

ADD CPMS vs AKANDE CASE HERE

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. The defendant remembers the day in question. They had parked in the marked bay and noticed there was a “20 Minute” free parking duration. The defendant was picking up an associate from the hotel opposite the parking space called “HOTELNAME”.Due to the time it took to collect this individual the defendant acquired a parking permit to park inside the hotel car park. The defendant moved the car to the car park before the 20 minute free period ended.

 

7.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

REST OF TEMPLATE...

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

massop

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Hi Keith,

The issue date is 13 NOV 2024, I filed the AOS today 19th NOV

Coupon-mad

There are now TWO persuasive appeal judgments. copy the one by @FluffySocks25

KeithP

massop said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Hi Keith,

The issue date is 13 NOV 2024, I filed the AOS today 19th NOV

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 16th December 2024 to file a Defence.

That's almost four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

massop

Thanks guys, I have amended my defence below, shall I stick to these 7 points or shall I also add the rest of the template from newbies thread? Would it make a difference?

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited

 

(Claimant)

 

 

 

- and –

 

NAME

 

(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'). The Defendant cannot even tell from the POC what they are said to have done wrong. The allocating Judge is respectfully invited to strike out the claim on that basis.

 

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. 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 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.

 

ADD CEL VS CHAN CASE HERE

 

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).

 

ADD CPMS vs AKANDE CASE HERE

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. The defendant remembers the day in question. They had parked in the marked bay and noticed there was a “20 Minute” free parking duration. The defendant was picking up an associate from the hotel opposite the parking space called “Staycity”.Due to the time it took to collect this individual the defendant acquired a parking permit to park inside the hotel car park. The defendant moved the car to the car park exactly 21 minutes from first arrival.

 

7.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

 

Statement of Truth

 

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Signature:

 

Date:

Coupon-mad

shall I stick to these 7 points

Eh? I'm sure you don't want to lose?

Unless you are legally trained or confident enough in your case points to write your own defence (rare) the Template Defence isn't there as an optional choice.  Did you not see how much else it covers that yours misses?

And this is the very LAST thing you should be saying because it isn't true:

"The defendant moved the car to the car park exactly 21 minutes from first arrival."

Eerr... no. That's their timings not yours.  Your car was actually parked in the bay for LESS than 20 minutes, surely?

Le_Kirk

You use all the paragraphs from the template defence when you submit it but don't post it on here as we dont need to check the template.

massop

I understand, you are absolutely correct.

I have added the rest to the defence but not posted it below, I made the changes to point 6

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited

 

(Claimant)

 

 

 

- and –

 

NAME

 

(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'). The Defendant cannot even tell from the POC what they are said to have done wrong. The allocating Judge is respectfully invited to strike out the claim on that basis.

 

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. 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 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.

 

ADD CEL VS CHAN CASE HERE

 

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).

 

ADD CPMS vs AKANDE CASE HERE

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. The defendant remembers the day in question. They had parked in the marked bay and noticed there was a “20 Minute” free parking duration. The defendant was picking up an associate from the hotel opposite the parking space called “Staycity”.Due to the time it took to collect this individual the defendant acquired a parking permit to park inside the hotel car park. The defendant moved the car to the car park before the 20 minute free period ended.

 

7.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

REST OF TEMPLATE

Coupon-mad

there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment

No there are two. Copy the final version by @FluffySocks25

massop

Thanks Coupon,

I made the change below. and only pasted the paragraphs that I made changes to

@FluffySocks25 didn't actually post the final version in their post so the changes they made I cant see in their thread.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

 

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is 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.

6. The defendant remembers the day in question. They had parked in the marked bay and noticed there was a “20 Minute” free parking duration. The defendant was picking up an associate from the hotel opposite the parking space called “Staycity”.Due to the time it took to collect this individual the defendant acquired a parking permit to park inside the hotel car park. The defendant moved the car to the car park before the 20 minute free period ended.