Defence for Court claim (Gladstones representing) parking fine

amiemurphy_2

KeithP said:

amiemurphy_2 said:

claim issue date was 4th nov. Filed AOS online 11th Nov.

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 9th December 2024 to file a Defence.

That's just one week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

Is it likely to be a hearing 

LDast

It's more likely to be struck out by the court before it ever gets to a hearing... as long as you follow the advice, which you have not yet done. Where is the Chan and Akande references and transcripts in your defence?

Coupon-mad

amiemurphy_2 said:

@KeithP will this suffice? I have not cut and pasted the rest of the paragraphs from the defence template but will add them to the defence that I file. 

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 facts known to the Defendant:

2. 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 but denies being the driver.

3. The defendant is not the sole user of the vehicle and cannot recall leaving the vehicle at this location.

 That's not the right version.

You seem to have missed my reply on your thread telling you which one to use, and missed what the Template Defence third paragraph says to do with a claim like yours.

amiemurphy_2

LDast said:

It's more likely to be struck out by the court before it ever gets to a hearing... as long as you follow the advice, which you have not yet done. Where is the Chan and Akande references and transcripts in your 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

4. 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.

amiemurphy_2

@Coupon-mad and @LDast could you advise me how to insert the transcripts into the defence. Do they need to be images or pdf files? Where can I obtain the transcripts from? Thank you 

Le_Kirk

amiemurphy_2 said:

@Coupon-mad and @LDast could you advise me how to insert the transcripts into the defence. Do they need to be images or pdf files? Where can I obtain the transcripts from? Thank you 

See my profile (click on my user name) and then go to Threads and then the Judgments Link

Flowerfan24

Hello, Sorry to jump on this thread, I have had a good read through but when we insert the transcripts under points 3 and 4 are we literally just adding in the link you have created to Dropbox and they can click on that and view all that is on the link? Sorry i'm not very technical!

Coupon-mad

Yes you can do it that way.

Flowerfan24

Perfect thank you, Once I have emailed my defence to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk Do I need to update on MCOL too where it says start defence or just leave that and they will update that they have received via email?  

Flowerfan24

Its ok found the answer I won't do anything on MCOL!