UKCPS and Moorside court claim.

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

Car1980 said:

Particulars are too vague and are non-compliant.As belt and braces I would still stick in the paragraph about how the POC breaches all the CPRs and should be struck out in any case. You don't want to be dragged to a hearing by some daft judge to explain the POFA to them. Poor particulars are another route to a quick strike out.

I agree.

I'm a bit uncomfortable that we've been told that the OP had a NTK headed:

'MNPR: Made under the POFA 2012'

... didn't they?

In which case - how are we so certain that they can safely try a (risky in my view) one-point defence relying on not being the driver, given that the judge might take a glance at the NTK and say "in my view this is substantially compliant and even references the POFA at the top"?

I would at least be using Chan & Akande at the start, as seen in the Template Defence thread. In fact I don't know why the OP isn't using the Moorside version of defence intro paragraphs already written (linked specially in the first post of the Template Defence thread), and just add as para 6 that they were not the driver and can prove it?

Nope.....
The PCN is specifically non pofa. It says it their opening post.
They have a clear defence. In my views cases such of these don't need added extras where the issues are narrowed such as they are
Is there keeper liability in play? =no 
Is there a clear statement that they were not the driver =yes

I've done plenty of claim hearings where the keeper is not the driver and it's non pofa.  You can pretty much predict what the claimant will try and come back
The judge in these kinds of cases will in my experience go for the central issue. Anything else is just window dressing imho

ChirpyChicken

@Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad

Oh good! Oops - I read the hijack post by chrisw (on page 1) about their NTK.

I'd still start with the Chan & Akande opening paragraphs if it were me. After all, they're already written & could see it struck out depending on the Court.

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

Oh good! Oops - I read the hijack post by chrisw (on page 1) about their NTK.

I'd still start with the Chan & Akande opening paragraphs if it were me. After all, they're already written & could see it struck out depending on the Court.

It won't do any harm to add them in agreed 

MelNay80

Sorry to jump on this thread.

I am about to email Moorside Legal using the template response to LOC. However as we never received the original PCN or NTK, we do not know if the PCN was non-POFA. 

Is there anywhere to find out so I can send the correct template? Hubby is the keeper but he was not the driver.

ChirpyChicken

The template is the same

Coupon-mad

MelNay80 said:

Sorry to jump on this thread.

I am about to email Moorside Legal using the template response to LOC. However as we never received the original PCN or NTK, we do not know if the PCN was non-POFA. 

Is there anywhere to find out.

No. It doesn't matter.

Mir-kat

Thanks for everyone's input I really appreciate it. I was trying to submit my defence through the mcol portal but it gave me this error

This field has invalid character. You cannot use < > "

This was the defence I tried to submit it has no triangle brackets 

1.  The Defendant ('D') denies that the Claimant ('C') is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  Further, it is denied that C (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 C 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. C 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". D 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. D 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 D 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: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v2lrfnk408u2qavuokcej/Chan_Akande.pdf?rlkey=o92ljo06yf0ehhyg1j9ayxla2&st=um09mews&dl=0

5. Except where it is expressly stated otherwise, all references to paragraph numbers in this Defence should be interpreted as references to the corresponding paragraphs in the POC.

 

6. At para 1 it is disputed that D is in any way indebted to C. Either by way of ‘Parking Charges’ or in any other form. C is put to strict proof.

 

7. It is further disputed at para 1 that D was in Playworld Huddersfield HD1 4LF on 12/10/2023. C is put to strict proof.

8. At para 4 it is disputed D is liable as C did not claim keeper liability by way of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 as stated by the wording "NON POFA" on the Notice to keeper C sent to D by post on 24/10/2023. Liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Therefore liability rests solely with the driver. D was not the driver at the material time.

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

In this situation i would not use the template defence and i  would actually log it straight on the MCOL portal 

If i was writing this defence i would deny any liability to claimant
State that the defendant was not the driver - That the claimant by their own admission is not claiming keeper liability and thus by their own admission they only claim from the driver  Explain that the provisions of keeper liability dont apply and liability can not flow from the driver to the keeper

Keep it simple.

**do not do the claimants work for them**

I see that this was suggested above, hence why the OP is doing this on MCOL.

Also it's very late, isn't it? What's the date of issue of the claim?

Mir-kat

The claim was issued on 3rd April