Template for Civil National Business Centre - Premier Parking Enforcement

fazrewards

Le_Kirk said:

As they seem to have provided sparse particulars of claim (assuming there is nothing of import under your redaction) you can use the amended defence, often called the @hharry100 defence and utilise the Chan & Akande judgments - see here: -
15 August 2024 am31 9:33AM <<<LINK

This is for just point 3 for the template do you think these points need to be included?

Explanation of the Incident

The Defendant states that on the day in question, the vehicle with registration SXXXX was parked at the location specified in the Particulars of Claim. The Defendant was not aware of any breach of terms as the signage was not clear or visible. 

<To be added>

The Defendant also points out a significant discrepancy: the claim was issued by Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd (a company), while the signage at the location states that the site is managed by Walton Wilkings Trading Premier Parking Logistics (a sole trader). This misrepresentation raises questions about the legitimacy and authority of the Claimant to issue and enforce parking charges at this location. The Defendant requests that the Court considers this misrepresentation and its implications on the validity of the claim.

The Defendant requests that the Court considers these judgments and strikes out the claim due to the lack of clarity and specificity in the particulars of claim.

Coupon-mad

You aren't having your facts as para 3.

Read literally any other Gladstones Defence that uses Chan & Akande in 2025.  No link needed. Just search. Dead easy one!

And add in the point about this being the wrong Claimant; the supposed contract in hidden/inadequate signs wasn't offered by the named Claimant company.

Don't use the weak word 'discrepancy'. Wrong Claimant! Kills the claim at a hearing, if it even gets that far.

fazrewards

First go at it if you can kindly review:

(will sort out numbering seems to have played up when copying from onenote)

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').

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 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.

2. Explanation of the Incident
   The Defendant states that on the day in question, the vehicle with registration SXXXX was parked at the location specified in the Particulars of Claim. The Defendant was not aware of any breach of terms as the signage was not clear or visible. The signage at the location was a cardboard cutout, which was not durable or permanently fixed, and the terms and conditions were not prominently displayed or legible.

   Furthermore, the Defendant points out a fundamental flaw in the Claimant's case: the claim was issued by Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd (a company), while the signage at the location states that the site is managed by Walton Wilkins Trading Premier Parking Logistics (a sole trader). This is a fatal error because:

   • The alleged contract (if any) was not offered by the named Claimant (Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd).

   • The Claimant has no legal standing to enforce a parking charge at this location, as they are not the entity named on the signage.

   The Defendant respectfully submits that this fundamental error renders the claim invalid and requests that the Court dismiss the claim on this basis.

   Additionally, the Defendant relies on the judgments in Chan v Barone & Anor [2022] and Akande v The Parking Group Ltd [2023], which confirm that vague and insufficient particulars of claim are grounds for striking out a claim. The Claimant's failure to provide adequate particulars, combined with the wrong claimant issue, undermines the validity of the claim entirely.

3. 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.

4. 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

Please don't show us the whole template. Edit it please, as we aren't checking our words!

typo:  Wilkings

fazrewards

Coupon-mad said:

Please don't show us the whole template. Edit it please, as we aren't checking our words!

typo:  Wilkings

No worries i have removed rest of the template, if there is anything else you think needs adding do let me know

Coupon-mad

Neither of these are the correct case!

Chan v Barone & Anor [2022] and Akande v The Parking Group Ltd [2023],

Literally - they are the wrong authorities. Never heard of them! Search the forum for

Gladstones Chan Akande defence

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Neither of these are the correct case!

Chan v Barone & Anor [2022] and Akande v The Parking Group Ltd [2023],

Literally - they are the wrong authorities. Never heard of them! Search the forum for

Gladstones Chan Akande defence

I gave the OP the link to judgments for the correct CEL v Chan and CPM v Akande 

fazrewards

Hi i have updated this below, sorry there is so much content I am trying to understand what exactly to put in. Can you see if this works or can recommend any adjustments? I tried to use this link but can you confirm if the ordering is a issue - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155


 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').

The facts known to the Defendant:

 2. 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 of the alleged incident  the Defendant is the sole user of the vehicle

Explanation of the Incident

3. The Defendant states that on the day in question, the vehicle with registration SXXXX was parked at the location specified in the Particulars of Claim. The Defendant was not aware of any breach of terms as the signage was not clear or visible. The signage at the location was a cardboard cutout, which was not durable or permanently fixed, and the terms and conditions were not prominently displayed or legible.

1. Furthermore, the Defendant points out a fundamental flaw in the Claimant's case: the claim was issued by Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd (a company), while the signage at the location states that the site is managed by Walton Wilkins Trading Premier Parking Logistics (a sole trader). This is a fatal error because:

   • The alleged contract (if any) was not offered by the named Claimant (Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd).

   • The Claimant has no legal standing to enforce a parking charge at this location, as they are not the entity named on the signage.

   The Defendant respectfully submits that this fundamental error renders the claim invalid and requests that the Court dismiss the claim on this basis.

   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. 

   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:

   https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v2lrfnk408u2qavuokcej/Chan_Akande.pdf?rlkey=o92ljo06yf0ehhyg1j9ayxla2&st=um09mews&dl=0

2. 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.

3. 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.

Le_Kirk

According to your defence paragraph #1, although it should be #2, you are defending a registered keeper but NOT driver.  For someone who is not the driver, you know a lot about the signs!  Were you a passenger or were you the driver but forgot to add that to paragraph #2 or were you nowhere near the car park?  The judge needs the facts.

fazrewards

Le_Kirk said:

According to your defence paragraph #1, although it should be #2, you are defending a registered keeper but NOT driver.  For someone who is not the driver, you know a lot about the signs!  Were you a passenger or were you the driver but forgot to add that to paragraph #2 or were you nowhere near the car park?  The judge needs the facts.

 Do you think this is fine to add  "However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the alleged incident  the Defendant is the sole user of the vehicle"