Moorside Legal - PCM - Further Particulars of Claim - Advice

remedy_man

Hi all,

I've had a considerable read through Newest Moorside Legal defence threads on this forum and I have an idea of what to do in terms of mounting a defence. Although I am yet to receive a Claim form from CNBC, Moorside Legal sent me a FURTHER PARTICULARS OF CLAIM which i have attached in the comments.

The FURTHER POC contains multiple alleged PCNS which i was not aware of possibly due to the dealership registering my vehicle to the wrong address. I updated the V5C log book some time last summer after getting hold of this error.

I'm feeling a bit confused if the Moorside Legal variant of the template defence will be suitable in my case. 

1. Will CEL vs Chan and CPM vs Akande's Judgment help my defence given the 2 highlighted boxes in red states the alleged breach?.
2. The template defence assumes there is only a single PCN, Do i need any special wording for multiple PCNs?

I am the registered keeper but not the driver in these alleged offences.

I really appreciate any advice on this matter

Thank you very much.

remedy_man

Here is a redacted scan of the FURTHERPOC

Coupon-mad

remedy_man said:

Here is a redacted scan of the FURTHERPOC

Doesn't make any sense because it quotes a claim number. I reckon you will receive a Claim Form this week.

This also doesn't add up!

DO NOT TIP THEM OFF:

- 5 x PCNs is £500.

- Even if they are adding the fake £70 to each PCN ('extorting money from motorists') 5 PCNs plus a laughable five fake 'fees' is £850.

- the interest calculation makes no sense whatsoever - does not state when it is calculated from and on which sums/when - and even the whole (extortionate) £850 can't attract £156.83 interest in less than 2 years, as that's nearer 10% per annum and the fake added £70 were not applied in April 2023.

 - That POC says they're claiming £1190.

Shhh... wait for the Claim.

remedy_man

Thanks for your reply @Coupon-mad I also picked up on the nonsensical interest calculation.

I will update this thread as soon as i receive the claims form.

remedy_man

Hi @Coupon-mad

Finally the Claim Form showed up in the post this afternoon. Having looked it over, it seems pretty much the same as the ones I’ve seen around on the forum, I’ll add paragraphs 1 to 6 of my personalised defence in a new comment for your reviewal.

Coupon-mad

You are too late unless MCOL says there's no default judgment yet.

remedy_man

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. 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 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 in 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 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. 

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:

Link to the two authorities: Chan Akande

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant is unable, based on the Particulars of Claim, 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.

6.1 Referring to the POC paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. 

6.2 Paragraph 2 is denied because no PCN was issued between 02/04/23 and 08/10/23, the period of the alleged parking. 

6.3 Whilst the defendant is the registered keeper paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of terms and conditions of the Wilds Ecology Centre car park.

6.4 The quantum is hugely exaggerated and it is denied that £1,190 was ‘the total of the PCN’. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their allegations.

remedy_man

Coupon-mad said:

You are too late unless MCOL says there's no default judgment yet.

There is no default judgment at the minute (I have also consulted credit reference agencies).
MCOL currently says "A bar was put in place" I am assuming they are waiting for my defence. I only received the claims form from HMCTS yesterday.

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

Yes your to late 

I wonder why a bar is in place? Normally that's because an email has been received that CNBC hasn't dealt with yet.

I think the OP should EMAIL their signed & dated defence today, stating that the claim form was only received on DATE.

If they do that, a defence FILED beats a default judgment not yet ENTERED.

This was clarified in 2020 with case law.

Worth a try. The CNBC will reply saying the defence is too late but the OP can point them to the case law and object.

Coupon-mad

@remedy_man change 6.2 to this:

6.2 The POC are embarrassing. Paragraph 2 is especially incoherent because it vaguely says that some unspecified PCNs were issued on unspecified dates for unexplained 'breaches' between 02/04/23 and 08/10/23. The POC refers to 'seven PCNs' but a separate document sent to the Defendant only lists five and none of those can have been for a PCN sum of  £170 because the industry cap is £100. In any event the Defendant is prejudiced and cannot meaningfully respond to such a mess of a claim. The above persuasive authorities apply: the Claim should be struck out.


Add the rest of the Template defence then hurry up:

-  EMAIL your defence today, stating in the body of the email that the claim form was only received on DATE.

- sign, date & email it NOW to the CNBC, carefully ensuring the subject line has the right claim number and the words 'defence filed by email' and make sure the attachment is on it.

remedy_man

@Coupon-mad

I updated 6.2 and submitted my defence yesterday, ensuring it was properly signed, dated, and addressed.

Today, I contacted HMCTS to inquire about the "bar in place" and was informed that PCM filed an amendment to the claim on 17 April. This is the first I have heard of this.