Help with defence - Met Parking Ltd / DCB Legal

Spacewomble

Thank you for the suggestions and reminders. Paras 1 - 5 straight from Chan & Akande defense, Paras 6 + 7 are mine, Para 8 edited from another case here, and paras 9 onwards as per original template, just renumbered.
-
-

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  (linked on my PDF, just cant post links on here yet)

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. 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.

6. On the day of the visit the Defendant was parked for less than five hours in an electric car parking space. The electric car spaces were spread out over a large area and the signage was unclear. The premises were large and it took several attempts of parking in various spaces to find a charger that would connect successfully to start an electric charge. The fact that many electric chargers were not working was reported to the electric charge supplier (Pod Point) by the Defendant. 

7. The Claimants photo of the Defendant’s number plate was taken on the road leading into the area and not at the entrance to the parking area. There was a roundabout and a petrol station between where the photo was taken and the parking area. It was not clear at what point the ‘site’ started. The ANPR camera was not obvious and so it was not clear that any time spent in traffic particularly queuing at the roundabout would be added to time staying in the car park. The ‘contract’ signage is only in the car park, not on the road or services or anywhere outside the car park.

8. 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 22/07/2019" (the date of the alleged visit).  The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  In Paragraph 3 of the POC the 'Reason' has been left completely blank so there is no allegation pleaded at all. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

9. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii).  adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

10. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

The rest as per template.

Coupon-mad

A very good Chan & Akande defence example with some facts given but clearly stating that the POC are woefully inadequate!

Nice. Tis ready to sign & date & email.

Spacewomble

All signed dated and submitted on Thursday afternoon, thanks for your help! I got the Auto Reply from Claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk, but nothing has appeared on MCOL yet. The issue date was 19th March which makes the deadline this Monday, but I'd forgot the Easter weekend essentially started Thursday afternoon, so hopefully the autoreply is good enough as proof of submission!

Coupon-mad

Yes it is. Relax.