Followed advice on here and now preparing Defence - first time and need some help

Woman91

MY ALTERED DEFENCE:

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. The Defendant cannot confirm whether they were the driver on that day.

3. 

The Defendant has no recollection of the alleged parking incident on the date in question, due to the date being over four years ago. The The information the Defendant can recall 9/11//2000 was during the second national lock down, Covid restrictions and requirements imposed by law where in place. The Defendant did not respond to intimidating letters from Claimant, as on returning to the named parking site the signage stated the Registered Keeper or Driver was within any displayed time allocations. Furthermore, the Claimant has not demonstrated that signage terms were clearly displayed and visible to the Defendant or any driver of the vehicle on that day to create a binding contractual obligation. The Defendant also questions the Claimant's right to recover the alleged sums in light of unclear evidence of their legal standing or authority to operate on the land in question.

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. 

3.1. 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.   

IS IT TIMES NEW ROMAN 1.5 SPACING. I WILL BE PRINTING AND SIGNING AND THEN EMAILING THE PDF

Woman91

Gr1pr said:

Woman91 said:

Sorry i thought I removed before I put on - i will delete my post now. Thanks

It's still there 

removed - I'm new it took me a while to work it out 

Gr1pr

Your paragraph 3 should look like this one 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

If your claimants lawyer is dcb legal   ? 

Who are the claimant parking company and any lawyers   ? Change the thread title to those 2, presumably it's ECP & DCB Legal   ?

Are the POC incorrect  ? They probably are after reading the first post back on page 1, especially the date

Le_Kirk

Woman91 said:

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The <...> The Defendant cannot confirm whether they were the driver on that day or not.

3. The Defendant has no recollection of the alleged parking incident on the date in question, due to the date being over four years ago. The The information the Defendant can recall was that 9/11//2000 was during the second national lock down, Covid restrictions and requirements imposed by law where in place. The Defendant did not respond to intimidating letters from Claimant, as on returning to the named parking site the signage stated the Registered Keeper or Driver was within any displayed time allocations. Furthermore, the Claimant has not demonstrated that signage terms were clearly displayed and visible to the Defendant or any driver of the vehicle on that day to create a binding contractual obligation. The Defendant also questions the Claimant's right to recover the alleged sums in light of unclear evidence of their legal standing or authority to operate on the land in question.

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. 

3.1. 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.   

See here 15 August at 9:33AM <<<<LINK to adjust your unnumbered paragraph between 3 and 3.1.  ALL paragraphs require a number.
ETA just checked the POC in your first post and I agree that you cannot use Chan and Akande.  My other edits stand.

Coupon-mad

You are not meant to be using the appeal case of Chan nor talking about the circumstances.

Just use the template Appeal with the generic para 3 I already gave you, that starts 'Regarding the POC' and just requires you to change one date.

Don't show us.  We don't need to check a template defence.

Woman91

Gr1pr said:

Your paragraph 3 should look like this one 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

If your claimants lawyer is dcb legal   ? 

Who are the claimant parking company and any lawyers   ? Change the thread title to those 2, presumably it's ECP & DCB Legal   ?

Are the POC incorrect  ? They probably are after reading the first post back on page 1, especially the date

Yes ECP and DCB legal

Woman91

I have adjusted to template you provided link for. The only difference being that I have not added words not the driver. I have put 
The Defendant cannot confirm whether they were the driver on that day, due to the date being over four years ago.
Because I read on the updated 2024  - if on the day you go in and get questions whether you where driver and said not  - if answer Is not good enough you will annoy the judge. 

Gr1pr

OK, use them and Slot them into the template defence,  replacing the existing 2 & 3 , job done for now,  follow the 12 steps and Keithp instructions etc

Woman91

Hi all I have not received the form N180 - it has been 38 days? I’ve been checking my post and emails. I have however just been sent a copy of the claimant direct questionnaire answers? Who should I contact? 

Gr1pr

Check your MCOL claim history to see if they have posted it out yet

Email a downloaded copy of your own completed N180 to the DQ email address and copying the lawyers too