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'). 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 formally contests the parking charge notice / POC. The defendant reinforces 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.

REST OF THE TEMPLATED ADDED HERE

Coupon-mad

"there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment"

There are two

Foxy0_0

Thanks everyone for your hard work. Much appreciated. 

Gr1pr

Correct, definitely 

Foxy0_0

Do I now add paras 4-30 and the statement of truth and renumber paras as recommended in template instructions? I have downloaded the drop link file as a pdf from the judgements link but cannot copy and paste from the pdf to insert the relevant cases. Please can you advise?

Coupon-mad

You could just show the link in the defence. Should be sufficient for the Judge.

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'). 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 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 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. 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2jef4c7bljyp6dse24p70/Judgments.pdf?rlkey=jsgusx180wzjz2f6er0436xw2&st=03x4tsbq&dl=0

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).

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2jef4c7bljyp6dse24p70/Judgments.pdf?rlkey=jsgusx180wzjz2f6er0436xw2&st=03x4tsbq&dl=0

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 formally contests the parking charge notice / POC. The defendant reinforces 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.

Do I now add paras 4-30 and the statement of truth and renumber paras? as recommended in the first template bearing in mind this was taken from a different template with less paras which relates directly to the PoC.

Thanking all for your comments.

Coupon-mad

Yes you do.

But obviously you don't need the link twice.

Foxy0_0

Thanks for the update. Shall I erase the link in Para 4  as I've inserted the same one in Para 3?

KeithP

Foxy0_0 said:

Thanks for the update. Shall I erase the link in Para 4  as I've inserted the same one in Para 3?

Remove the second link and also adjust the words in brackets in para 4 to refer to the link above.