UKPA PCN - Defence - Witness statement

FGLLA

Hi All,

I received a PCN through the post in Jan 2024 as the registered keeper, but not the driver.
Finally received the court paperwork etc and need to now file my defence.

I believe the POC is crap and fails to comply with the CPR and PD so I've included that section too.

The solicitors are Moorside Legal.

Could you please confirm my defence is ready to file?

Many Thanks,




POC:






DEFENCE: (standard parts removed - I've left the POC non-conformance in)

 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

 

3. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are now 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.

 

4. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) 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.

 

 [transcipt inserted here]

 

5. The defendant first became aware of the allegation upon receiving a “PCN” through the post. The defendant was not the driver at the time of each allegation, as should visible in the pictures recorded via the ANPR cameras. After speaking to the driver at the time of the allegation, the defendant learned that the driver had parked in a car park and a parking permit was purchased.

 

...

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Signature:

 

Date:

Le_Kirk

The regulars will not read through that template defence to see if you have changed or added anything.  Can you edit it to remove all paragraphs except those you have added or edited please.  Who is the solicitor involved (if any) and if it is DCB Legal there is a bespoke defence for paragraph #3.  There are now two persuasive cases Chan and Akande.  See here: -
15 August 2024 at 9:33AM <<<<LINK

fisherjim

Wow a POC for a parking invoice that apart from a big spelling mistake states:

"The Claimants Claim is for outstanding parking fines for a contraventioon.........."

Quite obviously compiled by a trainee that hasn't a clue and hasn't been supervised.

I am no expert on court claims but that is surely a major flaw that must be referenced at the top of the defence they cannot reference these as "fines"!

FGLLA

Le_Kirk said:

The regulars will not read through that template defence to see if you have changed or added anything.  Can you edit it to remove all paragraphs except those you have added or edited please.  Who is the solicitor involved (if any) and if it is DCB Legal there is a bespoke defence for paragraph #3.  There are now two persuasive cases Chan and Akande.  See here: -
15 August 2024 at 9:33AM <<<<LINK

Ahh apologies, I've removed most of the standard defence now and added the solicitors are Moorside Legal. I'll also have a look at the link.

fisherjim said:

Wow a POC for a parking invoice that apart from a big spelling mistake states:

"The Claimants Claim is for outstanding parking fines for a contraventioon.........."

Quite obviously compiled by a trainee that hasn't a clue and hasn't been supervised.

I am no expert on court claims but that is surely a major flaw that must be referenced at the top of the defence they cannot reference these as "fines"!

Haha yes it did make me laugh, I googled the claimant's legal representative and apparently he's a solicitor with a few years of experience. Apparently.

FGLLA

Le_Kirk said:

The regulars will not read through that template defence to see if you have changed or added anything.  Can you edit it to remove all paragraphs except those you have added or edited please.  Who is the solicitor involved (if any) and if it is DCB Legal there is a bespoke defence for paragraph #3.  There are now two persuasive cases Chan and Akande.  See here: -
15 August 2024 at 9:33AM <<<<LINK

Now updated para 3 with the mention of 2 cases.

fisherjim

FGLLA said:

fisherjim said:

Wow a POC for a parking invoice that apart from a big spelling mistake states:

"The Claimants Claim is for outstanding parking fines for a contraventioon.........."

Quite obviously compiled by a trainee that hasn't a clue and hasn't been supervised.

I am no expert on court claims but that is surely a major flaw that must be referenced at the top of the defence they cannot reference these as "fines"!

Haha yes it did make me laugh, I googled the claimant's legal representative and apparently he's a solicitor with a few years of experience. Apparently.

Yes indeed, but Moorside legal are members of the BPA and that statement is clearly a misrepresentation of authority by them on behalf of their client, it is a very severe sanctionable action!

1505grandad

As above  -  per the latest unregulated CoP (soon to be replaced by a proper regulated PPCoP by the Government):

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW Redesigned Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf

My highlighting:-

"E.1 General The terminology used in all communications relating to the pursuit of a parking charge must be clear, concise and conveying to the recipient what they are being asked to pay, why, how to pay, the consequences of not paying, and how to appeal against the charge. They must not misrepresent to the recipient that the parking charge arises from the exercise of the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. Therefore, the notice must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority, where it is not, nor unduly pressurise the recipient such that they do not consider all their options or make a decision that they might not otherwise have made"

Coupon-mad

Why not just search the forum and copy a Moorside defence?  They are all the same.

FGLLA

fisherjim said:

FGLLA said:

fisherjim said:

Wow a POC for a parking invoice that apart from a big spelling mistake states:

"The Claimants Claim is for outstanding parking fines for a contraventioon.........."

Quite obviously compiled by a trainee that hasn't a clue and hasn't been supervised.

I am no expert on court claims but that is surely a major flaw that must be referenced at the top of the defence they cannot reference these as "fines"!

Haha yes it did make me laugh, I googled the claimant's legal representative and apparently he's a solicitor with a few years of experience. Apparently.

Yes indeed, but Moorside legal are members of the BPA and that statement is clearly a misrepresentation of authority by them on behalf of their client, it is a very severe sanctionable action!

Who can do the sactioning? is there someone I need to escalate this to?

FGLLA

Coupon-mad said:

Why not just search the forum and copy a Moorside defence?  They are all the same.

Many thanks.

Just gone through a few others and added the 2nd judgement (para 5) to my defence:

3. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are now 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.

 

4. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) 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.

 

5. 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 below).

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.