Newbie, sorry, feeling a little overwhelmed

rfhead

Added as a link or actually pasted in

Coupon-mad

rfhead said:

.

Added as a link or actually pasted in

Well you are meant to be using the special Parking Eye DCB Legal defence starting paragraphs. Not the one you used.

Go back and re-read the FIRST POST of the Template Defence thread. It's linked there.

rfhead

So everything Ive done so far is completely wrong? 

Great, taken me 2 days to do that and it’s all wrong.
like I said you might find it easy but I’m finding this all so confusing, so many links so many things to change and add, and take bits from here there and everywhere. I’m sorry I seem like a complete idiot…..

rfhead

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

_________________ adjust above where needed

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 and not the driver of the vehicle at that time.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 20/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  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 prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations

This is where I got to and I thought I was getting there 

Is all this now wrong

Gr1pr

OK, reading back , the confusion came on page 2 of this thread,  where you started to look at and adapt the default template defence,  but looking back on page 1 you were explicitly pointed towards the special Parking Eye defence template,  the Chan and Akande defence template,  not the default defence template 

So I have been helping you to adapt the wrong template,  because I am afraid that you chose the wrong template. Coupon mad told you which one to use from the beginning and I asked you to follow her previous advice 

Some of your wordings above probably go into the correct template around paragraphs 5 & 6 , instead of 2 & 3

You were also asked to add an extra paragraph about the blue badge etc too, so probably paragraph 7

You must remember that we volunteers see many cases,  so can only point you in the right direction , we dont always start from the beginning of a long thread like yours, over multiple pages

It looks like gramps finally noticed the error earlier today 

Coupon-mad

rfhead said:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

_________________ adjust above where needed

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 and not the driver of the vehicle at that time.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 20/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  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 prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations

This is where I got to and I thought I was getting there

No. Go to where I said. Copy the right one.

rfhead

This one 

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, 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 and driver.

6. (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)

7. (Then put in para 4 of the template defence onwards here and re-number all paragraphs below this. Your defence will exceed 30 paragraphs).

Gr1pr

Yes, but paragraphs 5 & 6 need the same adaptations as your previous 2 & 3, then add the extra paragraph about the BB, ( so your 2 days work wasn't wasted at all  )

rfhead

I think I will resume tomorrow, my head is pounding now and I’m so tired. It’s so hard to concentrate when taking morphine so I think I will try and get a good nights sleep and try and get it right tomorrow.
but I do appreciate all your help and the help of others over the past few days, also, sorry, what do you mean by add extra para about bb? Also the link to the 2 authorities Chan Akande, do I add all the text or just the hyperlink to the file?
thanks
michelle

Gr1pr

rfhead said:

sorry, what do you mean by add extra para about bb?

Also the link to the 2 authorities Chan Akande, do I add all the text or just the hyperlink to the file?

thanks
michelle

Coupon-mad said this back on page 1

After doing the AOS, just use the special DCB Legal / Parking Eye claim already written for you.

The starting paragraphs for these cases are linked in the FIRST post of the Template Defence thread, then add and renumber paragraphs 4 onwards from the normal template defence.

You should also state somewhere near the start that the driver is a disabled blue badge holder and this claim is illegal discrimination, caused by the Claimant's choice to operate cheaply by using remote ANPR which does not account for the extra time needed by people with mobility and other impairments.

I believe that you should add your adapted paragraphs as 5 & 6, add a para 7 about the ( BB  ) blue badge as advised by coupon mad 

Then for the final document,  you add the rest of the standard template defence from 4 onwards , renumbering due to the extra paragraphs , so around 34 paragraphs in total in the final document 

We only need to check the first seven, but really only checking your new paragraphs 5 & 6 & 7 , bearing in mind that coupon mad wanted the BB paragraph near the beginning somewhere, but you will have to renumber the final draft