2 parking locations

Gr1pr

So login to MCOL and complete the AOS online,  as explained in the second post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements 

Then start drafting your defence based on the template defence by coupon mad in announcements,  adapting paragraphs 2 & 3

Follow the 8 steps in that thread too

tradershads

For my defence (point 3) :   please let me know what you think:  

The Defendant denies any breach. The Defendant is a Blue Badge holder and parked in one area of the retail park. Before the three-hour limit expired, the Defendant drove to a second parking area with its own entrance, access road, and signage. The two areas are physically separate and not obviously part of a single car park. Both displayed identical signs but made no mention that the time limit applied across both locations as one.

 A reasonable driver would have understood this to be a new parking session. Given the physical separation, there was no basis to assume the time from the first area was still running. Any ambiguity must be resolved in the Defendant’s favour (*contra proferentem*). As a disabled driver with limited mobility, the operator also had a duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

1505grandad

Your VRM is showing in the PoC.

No breach is actually pleaded so I believe the Chan and Akande cases are relevant.

tradershads

Court Paper 

Not_A_Hope

An excellent defence point is they have not stated on their claim form what term they allege you have breached. As a result you should not mention anything in your defence statement about an overstay. Let the court throw it out on the basis of poor particulars of claim

REFER TO CEL v CHAN & CPMS v AKANDE

Coupon-mad

...which is already written and linked in the Template Defence for cases with no breach pleaded.

tradershads

Revised Point 3:  The Particulars of Claim are devoid of detail and fail to disclose a clear cause of action. They do not specify the nature of the alleged breach, the conduct said to give rise to it, or how the sum claimed is calculated. The Defendant is therefore unable to properly understand or respond to the case. This falls short of the Civil Procedure Rules and the requirements of CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paras 7.3–7.5, which require a claimant to set out a concise statement of facts and details of the alleged breach. This defect is material and prejudicial, as confirmed in *Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan* (Ref. E7GM9W44, 15/08/2023, Stockport) and *Excel Parking Services Ltd v Akande* (Ref. G4QZ465V, 21/09/2023, Luton), where similar vague pleadings were struck out. The Defendant reserves the right to apply for strike out or summary judgment on the same basis.

1505grandad

"Excel Parking Services Ltd v Akande* (Ref. G4QZ465V, 21/09/2023, Luton),..."

Please use the link provided in the Template Defence announcement  -  that it definitely the wrong case. 

Coupon-mad

That's not the one I signposted you to, is it?

tradershads

Is this the correct version for point 3?

3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) 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 Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'."