NCP- ANPR overstay ..small claims defence help

Honest_lawabiding17com

Hello..as a very rusty newbie I could do with help. Received claim form 28 March. Incident was 3/2/24..PCN received 11/4/24 so evidence for my car not being in car park for 6 hours impossible.
Basically the car had entered and departed a car park twice in the same day dropping off and picking up my wife. Have evidence of shopping purchase and repeat prescription pick up during those 6 hours and a phone call from my wife 10 minutes before I picked her up. What`s my chances.on the scale of 1 to 10?

Coupon-mad

I really hope you did the AOS?! When?

If you already have a CCJ then it will be too late so get the AOS done! 

Show us the claim form redacted of data, VRM, claim no & password.

Honest_lawabiding17com

yes  AOS done 7/4/25.

Honest_lawabiding17com

aos done 7.4.25

Coupon-mad

Easy. Use the Template Defence version specially for Moorside Legal claims.

Honest_lawabiding17com

Many thanks..I`ll give it a go..how long to my deadline please?

Gr1pr

Honest_lawabiding17com said:

Many thanks..I`ll give it a go..how long to my deadline please?

33 days after the issue date,  by 4pm

So 30th April,  next week 

Honest_lawabiding17com

hello, trying to send you my first 8 defence points from the Moorside template but it says i`ve not been  around long enough to post links. Presume it`s a restriction safeguard of some kind . Can anyone assist please.

Gr1pr

Just copy and paste them below 

Honest_lawabiding17com

Hello, how`s this attempt so far please

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. 

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 judgements in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the Particulars of Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th of 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 and driver. 

6.1 Referring to the Particulars of Claim paragraph 1 is denied. The defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. 

6.2 Paragraph 2 is denied because no Parking Charge Notice was issued on 3/2/2024, the date 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 station car park. 

6.4 The quantum is hugely exaggerated (170 on private land is excessive) and no damages have occurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their allegations. 

7.  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
 line

8. 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.

I won`t add any more..I would feel your annoyance from here.

Coupon-mad

Looks great! No annoyance when we aren't inflicted by the entire template.

  

I would add here: 

6.4 The quantum is hugely exaggerated and it is denied that £170 was 'the total of the PCN'. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their allegations.

(As shown, I've removed 'No damages have occurred whatsoever' because they haven't pleaded it as damages).