Parkingeye court claim

Foxy0_0

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. 

Foxy0_0

Any thoughts please bearing in mind "So it is alleged that the driver 'breached the terms on the signs (the contract)'.

And that allegation is then repeated - 'Reason: Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions'.

Le_Kirk

You are right that you have sparse POC but there are now two appeal cases, CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande; see my Judgments Link thread on my profile @Le_Kirk

Fruitcake

You should also include the fact that at the material time, the vehicle was not at the location specified on the claimant's Notice to Keeper, nor that stated on the claim form. Proof that the vehicle was elsewhere at the material time will be provided at the evidence stage. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Foxy0_0

Thanks to both. I have read the CEL v CHAN and see that judgement has been set aside .

Foxy0_0

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. 

4.At the material time, the vehicle was not at the location specified on the claimant's Notice to Keeper, nor that stated on the claim form. Proof that the vehicle was elsewhere at the material time will be provided at the evidence stage.  The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

. 

Le_Kirk

There are two persuasive appeal cases, see the Judgments Link thread in my profile. What do you mean "you have read Cel v Chan and see the judgment has been set aside"?

Foxy0_0

I couldn't find the link on your profile page so I searched the parking forum and found a judgement appeal transcript CEL v Chan  with Le_Kirk mentioned. I'm not at all techie and I am struggling to understand what I am supposed to do next. I am trying my best.

Le_Kirk

Click on my name and you are taken to my profile; on that profile you can see my posts and threads. Just click on threads and then the "Judgments Link" thread.

Coupon-mad

Foxy0_0 said:

Thanks to both. I have read the CEL v CHAN and see that judgement has been set aside .

No it hasn't.  I don't know what you mean.  You just add the Akande wording and transcript under the Chan transcript images.

Then your para 5 is simply responding to the woeful POC, paragraph by paragraph.  Like in the thread by @ih8ukpc and others just like it in any DCB Legal claim thread this month.

The paragraph that begins 'Regarding the POC'.  Copy that & adapt to make sense.