PCM Moorside court claim received (Merged)

Gr1pr

The OP also needs to edit the thread title to something more suitable and appropriate,  like 

PCM Moorside court claim received

The word CCJ should also be changed to court claim,  because there is no CCJ at the moment 

befree16

Gr1pr said:

Paragraph 2 would state keeper and driver,  if true,  so 2 extra words to the template defence Paragraph 2,  as per the recommendations 

Coupon mad is saying that you should study recent Moorside cases that are also based on the POC for 3 ,plus Chan & Akande 

Normally the witness statement bundle is submitted several months after the defence,  but to your local nominated civil court and to Moorside,  so not to the CNBC in Northampton 

There is no witness statement at the defence stage , not when the CNBC are involved 

Hope that information helps 

Hi,

so this is what I have compiled as per advice given here and searching the forums:

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 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. 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. 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).




The facts known to the Defendant:
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.

EVERYTHING else below is what is on the Template Defence document here: Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2024 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

I have also noticed some users have added a few more judgements:

5.       Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit xx-02)
 
6.       Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit xx-03)
 
7.       Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit xx-04)
 
8.       The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the Defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

Should I be adding these also?

Many thanks!

Coupon-mad

No you don't need those.  Not appeals.

befree16

Coupon-mad said:

No you don't need those.  Not appeals.

Ok, sounds good to me.  So I assume I am all good to go, with the defence?

Coupon-mad

befree16 said:

3. The Defendant was visiting the area to collect their father from Hayes & Harlington train station. The Defendant proceeded to drive into a small area which exhibits as a car park, with convenience stores located opposite.
Once the Defendant noticed there were no free parking spaces, they idled for a period of seconds in anticipation of a parked car leaving, thus freeing up a space. The Defendant realised the driver of a car in a free space did not have the intention of moving after rolling down their window and having a brief exchange of words. The Defendant then proceeded to perform a 3-point-turn to vacate High Point Village.
On the final part of the 3-point manoeuvrer, the Defendant’s father appeared and opened the vehicle’s door, and proceeded to get in.
The Defendant wishes to reiterate the series of events described above occurred in under 5 minutes. The Defendant also highlights the lack of clear signage at High Point Village, which would prewarn any driver entering the premises; and small size and confinement of the managed area being a potential bottleneck for traffic, causing ‘stopped’ vehicles to appear ‘parked’.
Thus, the Defendant believes the parking area at High Point Village is being exploited for monetary purposes, as a trap for unsuspecting drivers; or drivers who are unable to determine the used capacity of the parking area from outside the land managed by Parking Control Management UK Limited.
The Claimant states the Defendant agreed to settle the PCN within 28 days of issue, which is not factual. Drawing on all points raised above, the Defendant claims no liability for the amount requested by the Claimant.

I think you need something of the above as a paragraph 6. But be much more concise. And don't say 5 minutes, say two minutes and that the Defendant has since discovered that PCM is well known for this trap of a 'scam' site, where the signage is woefully inadequate.

Typo here:

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is are now two persuasive Appeal judgments

befree16

Coupon-mad said:

befree16 said:

3. The Defendant was visiting the area to collect their father from Hayes & Harlington train station. The Defendant proceeded to drive into a small area which exhibits as a car park, with convenience stores located opposite.
Once the Defendant noticed there were no free parking spaces, they idled for a period of seconds in anticipation of a parked car leaving, thus freeing up a space. The Defendant realised the driver of a car in a free space did not have the intention of moving after rolling down their window and having a brief exchange of words. The Defendant then proceeded to perform a 3-point-turn to vacate High Point Village.
On the final part of the 3-point manoeuvrer, the Defendant’s father appeared and opened the vehicle’s door, and proceeded to get in.
The Defendant wishes to reiterate the series of events described above occurred in under 5 minutes. The Defendant also highlights the lack of clear signage at High Point Village, which would prewarn any driver entering the premises; and small size and confinement of the managed area being a potential bottleneck for traffic, causing ‘stopped’ vehicles to appear ‘parked’.
Thus, the Defendant believes the parking area at High Point Village is being exploited for monetary purposes, as a trap for unsuspecting drivers; or drivers who are unable to determine the used capacity of the parking area from outside the land managed by Parking Control Management UK Limited.
The Claimant states the Defendant agreed to settle the PCN within 28 days of issue, which is not factual. Drawing on all points raised above, the Defendant claims no liability for the amount requested by the Claimant.

I think you need something of the above as a paragraph 6. But be much more concise. And don't say 5 minutes, say two minutes and that the Defendant has since discovered that PCM is well known for this trap of a 'scam' site, where the signage is woefully inadequate.

Typo here:

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is are now two persuasive Appeal judgments

Thank very much for notifying me of the typo.

I have redrafted the above - is it more satisfactory?

6. The Defendant proceeded to drive into High Point Village.

7. The Defendant noticed there were no free parking spaces. The Defendant then proceeded to perform a 3-point-turn to vacate High Point Village.

8. On the final part of the 3-point manoeuvre, the Defendant’s father appeared and opened the vehicle’s door, and proceeded to get in.

9. The Defendant reiterates the series of events described above occurred within 1-2 minutes.

10. The Defendant highlights the lack of clear signage at High Point Village, which prewarns any driver entering the premises; and small size and confinement of the managed area being a potential bottleneck for traffic, causing ‘stopped’ vehicles to appear ‘parked’.

11. Based on the points above and interactions with other motorists, the Defendant believes the parking area at High Point Village is being exploited for monetary purposes, as a trap for:

(i). unsuspecting drivers

(ii). or drivers who are unable to determine the used capacity of the parking area from outside the land managed by Parking Control Management UK Limited.

12. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and
(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

Coupon-mad

Still too long and reads as though Chat GPT wrote it. No need for words like 'proceeded' or 'manoeuvre' or 'exploited for monetary purposes'. That's bot-speak!

And no need for more than one paragraph. Just put what I said!

befree16

Coupon-mad said:

Still too long and reads as though Chat GPT wrote it. No need for words like 'proceeded' or 'manoeuvre' or 'exploited for monetary purposes'. That's bot-speak!

And no need for more than one paragraph. Just put what I said!

I sent it out already.  But on reflection, I agree with what you suggest.

Can I resubmit one as it is not yet 4pm, or is it not worth it now?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

No you can't. But that defence is fine as long as it was within the whole template.

befree16

Hi All,

firstly, I know it is written about this in the newbies thread etc.  I have read it all.

However this N180 paper form has no option to decline mediation.  I have read it is on threads from last year it is advisable to download an old copy, but this seems a bit risky - is it still a valid form?

Do all of these cases now go to mediation?  Should I just leave it all blank?  It says I could receive sanctions for non-attendance.

Secondly, is it still acceptable to send to N180 via email?  It does not mention this at all in the paper copy, however I did send my defence as part of the AOS via email...

Would be great to get closure on these questions!

Thanks