UK car park management LTD claim form defence

Anonymous123456

Coupon-mad said:

Why haven't you used the version I told you about twice? I even said exactly where it's linked.

Sorry i couldn't find it earlier,  but thankfully i managed to locate it. i have amended this now, please critique

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.

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 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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. 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 on the following persuasive authorities:

3. 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.  

3.1. 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 the Defendant trusts 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 above, underscore the deficiencies in private parking case POCs, which fail to meet the required standards under CPR 16. 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:

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

The facts known to the Defendant

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. 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. 

5. 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. 

6. 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. 

7. 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 template, i have a total of about 36 points in the defence. 
Thankyou in advance

Coupon-mad

 "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."

The above makes no sense because you said you can't recall who was driving - so are you sure you weren't? Make it clear and only state it once.

And in para 7:

"no PCN can be £182.23"

should read

no PCN can be £170

and remove all this:

"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."