CCJ Defence Moorside Legal NCP Parking

Le_Kirk

Le_Kirk said:

Coupon-mad said:

I might replace the link in the Template Defence third para with that one instead of the old hharry100 version that only mentions Chan.

@Coupon-mad, would it help to have a separate Dropbox link just for Chan_Akande to go alongside the Judgments link?

Coupon-mad said:

Yes I think it would.

There is now Chan_Akande which is just those two appeal judgments

Coupon-mad

Thanks!

So the new starting paragraphs to the alternative defence - for all Gladstones, CEL (in-house only) and Moorside Legal claims (and specifically also for DCB Legal but only when it's a ParkingEye or Group Nexus claim!) look like this, below ... TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE REST OF THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE:

(USUAL HEADINGS AT THE TOP)

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 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. 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 authorities:

3. 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. 

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'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities: Chan_Akande

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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. (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)

7. (Then put in para 4 of the template defence onwards here and re-number all paragraphs below this. Your defence will exceed 30 paragraphs). 

Victimofpcn

Hi where can i find the remaining of the 30 paragraph of defence?

Le_Kirk

Victimofpcn said:

Hi where can i find the remaining of the 30 paragraph of defence?

You posted about it here 30 December 2024 at 9:34PM which leads me to suppose you had found it then.

Victimofpcn

Le_Kirk said:

Victimofpcn said:

Hi where can i find the remaining of the 30 paragraph of defence?

You posted about it here 30 December 2024 at 9:34PM which leads me to suppose you had found it then.

But the above is just 7 para not 30 paras, unless I am missing something?  Please advise

Le_Kirk

The template defence is an announcement on the first page of the forum called: -

Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2024

Also check your post here 2 January at 9:52PM where you said: -
[PARAGRAPHS 7-32 SAME AS THE DEFENCE TEMPLATE] suggesting you had found it.

mrknight

Hi, i recieved a letter of claim from moorside legal for several unpaid parking tickets at a NCP Greater Anglia car park

I have had several other similar pcns cancelled by using this template:

I appeal as keeper.  I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.  You cannot transfer the driver's liability (if any) to me as keeper because the location in question is excluded from the definition of 'relevant land' in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA').

Furthermore, even if (which is not the case) the location is relevant land, your PCN is not POFA-compliant because (without limitation) it was delivered after the end of the 'relevant period' as defined in POFA paragraph 9 and does not contain the mandatory wording required by that paragraph.

I require you to cancel the PCN or issue a POPLA Code so that POPLA can order you to cancel it.

I have acknlowledged the claim but need to make a defence. I have not replied to any letters from moorside legal and have not said i am the driver. All the tickets were all delivered at the end relevant period. So can i use this defence for the money claim as well?

could someone help me draft a letter to write for my defence, i would be very grateful.

thank you

Coupon-mad

I've replied on your own thread.

Harpermrs

Hello, I’ve had a rough time of it last couple of years with mine and my husbands health and I have just received two letters of claim-one dcblegal and one from SiP…I have only had one pcn a long time ago and the advice at that time was to ignore which is what I did with these which I now understand isn’t the best available action anymore.
i have read the newbies info and wanted to ask if somebody could kindly advise if I am doing the right thing emailing both forms directly with the completed templates posted on thread two of this thread? The one with two questions 
my concentration and processing isn’t great and I don’t want to worry my husband with it
thank you in advance  

Coupon-mad

I have just received two letters of claim-one dcblegal and one from SiP.

Is the DCB Legal one for a different PPC?

You aren't filling in ANY of the attached forms.