PCN from premier park, claim made to court against me, advise for defence please

Coupon-mad

Please deny the sentences in the POC one by one and show us what that looks like.

rokki

Thanks for getting back to me - as you can probably tell I'm feeling quite anxious and out of my depth which I guess is exactly the point of these claims!

How about:

The facts known to the Defendant:

1.     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 appears 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 it is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any prominent/known term, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver. 

The sum of £170 that is being claimed is denied as it is believed not to appear on any signage whatsoever. The quantum is hugely exaggerated and no PCN can be £170 on private land.  

 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:

continues as per defence template.

I'm really struggling with what to deny as tbh as I did park in breach of their terms, and on the date mentioned in the POC. Also I didn't pay the PCN withing 28 days and havent paid anything since. I don't agree with the amounts but I'm struggling really to defend my position in this section of the template because I did go over the max time on their signage. I'm a bit stuck with what to do 

rokki

Or do I literally just put in "I deny that" at the beginning of every sentence in the POC....but that feels like I'm lying......

Coupon-mad

rokki said:

Here are the starting paragraphs to the alternative defence 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.

6. Referring to the POC: there is no valid 'outstanding liability' because no contract was agreed to pay any sum to park.  Unlike in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis, there were insufficient signs to be bound to have alerted drivers to the risk of an extortionate charge, let alone an obligation to pay within 28 days. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 test of fairness, both terms and signs ('consumer notices') must be prominent. It is too late for a consumer to be bound by terms if they only learn of the alleged contract weeks later in November 2023 when the PCN arrived, bearing all the hallmarks of a scam invoice from a company the Defendant had never even heard of, let alone agreed to pay. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms, not that the Claimant has bothered to specify the term or the conduct that caused a PCN to arise. The Defendant avers that the quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no additional 'contractual costs' incurred whatsoever, not that the breakdown of these two heads has been provided. The interest calculation also cannot be correct because it cannot possibly run on the exaggerated £170 from the date of the parking event because no monies are remotely able to be described as overdue before the PCN was even issued! In all respects this claim is a template mess; an abuse of the court process.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations in the event that the allocating Judge does not agree with the two appeal authorities above and strike out the claim without a hearing, as dozens of Judges have with similar cases in the past 18 months.

8. (Then put in para 4 of the template defence onwards here 'The Claimant will concede that...' and re-number all paragraphs below this. Your defence will exceed 30 paragraphs). 

See the Template Defence thread.

rokki

oh my goodness thank you so much! I'm now very embarrassed at my very first stab at it - you're eyes must have been rolling!
I've done it, and sent it to the email address on the newbies thread (not MCOL)
I'll let you know what happens 
Total lifesaver - thank you

Le_Kirk

rokki said:

I've done it, and sent it to the email address on the newbies thread (not MCOL)

Did you mean the address on the template defence thread? ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

rokki

Yes, thanks for double checking - I sent it to ClaimResponses.CBNC@justice.gov.uk

Nellymoser

Re check your sending address. You've written CBNC above it should be CNBC as in Le_Kirk post.

Coupon-mad

Did you get an auto receipt?

Please don't post it here though...

rokki

Yes, sorry, my bad with the typo on my post - I've got an auto receipt that says to expect a reply within 10 days
Thank you so much everyone that is taking an interest in my PCN, I'll keep this thread posted