New claim form

makoali123

My first post I mentioned two claim forms in a week. This post is just regarding to my second one to make it easier to form defences. 

Original post: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6583387/claim-forms#latest

as I stated this claim form is to do with overstaying in a retail park car park for 15 minutes past the time. 

I will file the acknowledgment of service tonight. 

I will then start working on a defence using the template as a starting point thank you. 

Please see attached the redacted claim form, any advice appreciated. 

KeithP

From that Claim Form, how can you conclude that "this claim form is to do with overstaying in a retail park car park for 15 minutes past the time"?

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.
Particularly this bit...

So it is alleged that the driver 'breached the terms on the signs (the contract)'.

And that allegation is then repeated - 'Reason: Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions'.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th January, you have until Monday 3rd February 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

makoali123

Hi KeithP, thank you again for the reply. Similar to the other post, i thought they could present more information later. I will start writing a defence and will not mention any particulars.
thank you again for the advice

Gr1pr

They will probably provide more information later,  at the Witness statement bundle stage,  but for now KeithP is correct,  you are defending against the poor POC,  even the POC issue date is probably incorrect,  so a recent numbered rebuttal for paragraph 3 as seen in other recent cases on here,  plus add an ending to paragraph 2 as well , such as

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6569210/dcb-legal-ecp-legal-court-claim-2025#latest

Le_Kirk

Easy defence for "vague particulars" add Chan & Akande; see here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6536578/judgments-link#latest

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

They will probably provide more information later,  at the Witness statement bundle stage,  but for now KeithP is correct,  you are defending against the poor POC,  even the POC issue date is probably incorrect,  so a recent numbered rebuttal for paragraph 3 as seen in other recent cases on here,  plus add an ending to paragraph 2 as well , such as

No - they need the Chan & Akande version where the facts are in Post 6.

makoali123

thank you for you help so far, I have completed my acknowledgement of service. I have found the template with Chan and Akande on a post by Lilacsoftcotton. 

The rest of the the template will follow on from this. I have also amended paragraph 6 as recommended by Coupon-mad in that post. 

Apologies for doubling up but the same defence seems to work for my other case. But I will post it again on that.

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 are 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. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande 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. 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2jef4c7bljyp6dse24p70/Judgments.pdf?rlkey=jsgusx180wzjz2f6er0436xw2&st=03x4tsbq&dl=0

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 linked above).

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. 

6. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 26/06/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. Whilst the Defendant did not see any prominent signs when visiting the location - and to this day, still does not know from the postal 'PCN' nor from reading the woefully inadequate POC what term is supposed to have been breached - it is known that this is not a pay & display car park. Further, this Claimant's standard signage does not quantify any added costs/damages so no monies are due under any agreed/known contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations in the event that the allocating Judge does not strike out the claim pursuant to the above two authorities.

followed by the rest of the template from paragraph 4.

Thank you all so much for your help thus far. Any feedback would be appreciated

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do for now. Easy innit?!

Just editing and posting the background from your other thread:

...was a retail park and is from DCB Legal, my wife allegedly overstayed by about 15 minutes whilst shopping with her friend. It was in June of 2024 (Typically my wife's second trip since having 4 months in hospital.)
Reading a bit around the forum, it seems that i could use insufficient signage as well as time calibration issues in defense. I just need to get my hands on the original PCN to see how much over she was etc.

makoali123

Due to all your work it certainly is. 

Thank you I’ll send it tomorrow and will return with an update. 

Le_Kirk

I would suggest you use this link, which shows Chan_Akande only