2x Claim Form from CPS

clowncake

Today is the day that I have received 2x Claim forms from Complete Parking Services for unauthorised parking. I parked in a car park on 2 occasions that was next to a restaurant assuming I could since there was a sign with a time on it when to keep clear but I guess not. 

I have ignored everything since so im guessing that my next step is preparing the defence? 

Coupon-mad

Yep, read other Gladstones claim Akande threads. Those are your forum search words!

LDast

If you follow the advice, you won't be paying a penny to CPS thanks to their utterly useless firm of bulk litigators, Gladrags, which is obviously staffed with failed wannabe legals who have the intellectual capacity of a brick when it comes to filing claims on their vexatious clients behalf.

Another two strike outs about to hit the fan.

clowncake

Coupon-mad said:

Yep, read other Gladstones claim Akande threads. Those are your forum search words!

Okay so far this is what I got, the rest is followed up the "Exaggerated Claim" section onwards all the way down to the Date. 

Should any of this be amended of should I proceed to the next stage?

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. 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.  

3. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fails 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: 

4. 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. 

5. 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. 
 
6. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished. 

Coupon-mad

Good!  What does the POC say exactly to identify the location?

clowncake

Coupon-mad said:

Good!  What does the POC say exactly to identify the location?

It has the location name, goes like this 

"*REG PLATE* (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of the parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at Lazarus House Car Park on *DATE* this incurring the parking charge"

KeithP

Your thread title and the opening post tell us that you have received two Claim Forms.
Are they both for the same vehicle, place and date?

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th February, you have until Monday 24th February to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS').  Do not file an AOS before 8th February, but otherwise 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 10th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over four 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'.

clowncake

KeithP said:

Your thread title and the opening post tell us that you have received two Claim Forms.
Are they both for the same vehicle, place and date?

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th February, you have until Monday 24th February to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS').  Do not file an AOS before 8th January, but otherwise 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 10th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over four 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'.

Both for same vehicle, same place but a different date. Same place but two different ocassions. 

AOS already been filed unfortunately, I missed the 5 days part that is mentioned in the newbies thread and got right to sorting everything out. Will that be an issue?

KeithP

clowncake said:
AOS already been filed unfortunately, I missed the 5 days part that is mentioned in the newbies thread and got right to sorting everything out. Will that be an issue?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
I guess today, but please confirm.

clowncake

KeithP said:

clowncake said:
AOS already been filed unfortunately, I missed the 5 days part that is mentioned in the newbies thread and got right to sorting everything out. Will that be an issue?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
I guess today, but please confirm.

Yeah it was today.

KeithP

clowncake said:

KeithP said:

clowncake said:
AOS already been filed unfortunately, I missed the 5 days part that is mentioned in the newbies thread and got right to sorting everything out. Will that be an issue?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
I guess today, but please confirm.

Yeah it was today.

In that case your Defence filing deadline is 4pm on Thursday 6th March 2025.
Four days lost.