We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
UK car park management LTD claim form defence
Anonymous123456
Posts: 38 Forumite
Hi all, i have been receiving PCN letters by the above company for an unpaid parking charge but failed to respond or dispute it as i was not the driver nor do I know who was. as a result of this i have received a claim form.
I only have access to 2 PCN letters sent by the company as some have been lost/thrown away. i know i should have appealed earlier to avoid this but I here we are.
Judging the POC the company is claiming against driver and or registered keeper
I have been reading countless threads of different cases, i have won 2 CCJ set asides and successfully defended them both for parking offences 6 years ago with all of your help so thank you all for that, i am confident i can do this again. i just want to make sure i have done everything that is required, here is what i have done so far:
1. acknowledgement of service online
2. made a subject access request to the DPO (data protection officer) as i want to ensure i have access all the facts and evidence they hold of the incident in question
3. created a defence that i believe is ready to be sent. can someone please check over my defence to ensure i have stated the correct information relating to the POC to defend the claim, note: i have included reference and links in the defence, is this allowed?? or should i include and reference only relevant text from the links?
0
Comments
-
Particulars of claim by claimant:1. The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXXXXX (the Vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract) at XXXXXX XXXXXBXXXX on XXXXXX thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN' in this case £182.23).2. The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN From the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle.3. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.4. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £12. 23 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.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').Facts known to the defendant2. 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 only and not the driver when the alleged contravention took place.3. With respect to paragraph 1 of the POC, the Defendant denies the allegations as set out, The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. In the POC, The claimant states 'a breach of terms as stipulated by the signage.' Such vague claims are typical of bulk litigators, who often fail to comply with the required standards set out in Practice Directions. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, this case has no merit and should be struck out .3.1 . 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 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 3.4.3.2. 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.3.3. Paragraph 2 of the POC is denied, Due to the significant amount of time since the parking incident took place, the defendant cannot recall who the driver could have been. Furthermore, multiple family members and friends had access to the vehicle. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, The defendant was not the driver when the alleged incident took place. The claimant is therefor put to strict proof.
3.4. paragraphs 3 and 4 are in the poc are denied, The Defendant is not liable for any such costs and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £182.23 for parking on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. This inflated charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but a penalty, which is unenforceable in the circumstances. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations including proving the defendant was the driver
4.Followed by the rest of the template with the relevant numbering.
is the above all correct, and do i need to change/add anything?
Also is it ok to include hyperlinks relevant to the point im arguing in the defence?0 -
Can you delete all of the template that you have just copied, pasted and not edited in any way; we do NOT need to check the template. only paragraphs #2 & #3. Your POC are vague and you quite rightly cite Chan but you can also now add another judgment, see here: -
15 August 2024 at 9:33AM <<<<LINK2 -
Which is already written for you in the special 'Gladstones version' of the start to the defence, linked in the first post of the Template Defence thread.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.2 -
The issue date was 3/03/2025KeithP said:What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.
Filed the AOS on 15/03/2025
Received on 17/03/2025
1 -
3rdonymous123456 said:
The issue date was 3/03/2025KeithP said:What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.
Filed the AOS on 15/03/2025
Received on 17/03/2025With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 7th April 2025 to file a Defence.
That's two 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.Don't miss the deadline 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'.1 -
Please don't miss this. It's right there for you.Coupon-mad said:Which is already written for you in the special 'Gladstones version' of the start to the defence, linked in the first post of the Template Defence thread.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hi All, i have just under 4 days to submit this so want to ensure i have everything correct.
Again, are links ok to be included under my points?Particulars of claim by claimant:1. The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXXXXX (the Vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract) at XXXXXX XXXXXBXXXX on XXXXXX thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN' in this case £182.23).2. The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN From the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle.3. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.4. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £12. 23 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.
DEFENCE1. 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 or registered keeper was in breach of any terms. 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').Facts known to the Defendant2. 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(Civil procedure rules), 16PD3 and 16PD7 (Practice direction), 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 only and not the driver when the alleged contravention took place.3. With respect to paragraph 1 of the POC, the Defendant denies the allegations as set out, The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. In the POC, The Claimant states "A breach of terms as stipulated by the signage." However, this claim is vague and lacks specificity. The use of generic and unspecific wording in the POC fails to meet the standards set out in the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions. As such, the Claimant has not provided sufficient particulars to support their claim. The case lacks merit and should be struck out in accordance with CPR 3.4(2) for failure to disclose an actionable claim.3.1 . 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 failed to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and PD16.7.5. Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) On the 15th August 2023, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of 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 3.4.3.2. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (K0DP5J30): In the judgment of HHJ Evans, dated 10th May 2024, the court 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." Typical private parking case Particulars of Claim (POC), such as in this case, fail to comply with Part 16 of the CPR (Civil Procedure Rules). Both judgments underscore the deficiencies in private parking case POCs, which fail to meet the required standards under CPR 16. The Chan and Akande transcripts are provided for the Court’s reference and will be exhibited later, should the claim not be struck out at the allocation stage. 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.3.3. Paragraph 2 of the POC is denied, Due to the significant amount of time since the parking incident took place, the Defendant cannot recall who the driver could have been. Furthermore, Multiple family members and friends had access to the vehicle. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, The Defendant was not the driver when the alleged incident took place. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof to prove the Defendant was the driver.3.4. Paragraphs 3 and 4 in the POC are denied, The Defendant is not liable for any such costs and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £182.23 for parking on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. This inflated charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but a penalty, which is unenforceable in the circumstances. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations including proving the Defendant was the driver.
Followed by the rest of the template0 -
Why haven't you used the version I told you about twice? I even said exactly where it's linked.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
You don't need the four links, which are separate pages of CEL v Chan nor the last single one, just use Chan_Akande when you have found the version that @Coupon-mad wrote about.2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards