UKCPS - Moorside Legal Defence

MuscleMissile

Hi All,

A few weeks ago I received a claim form on behalf of Moorside legal chasing 2 UKCPS PCNs.

I have filed my AoS, I have spent this week writing and copying over my defence and just have a few questions before I submit.

1. Is the claimaint UKCPS or Moorside Legal?


2. I have copied from sections from 3 threads and just wanted to check if it read well:

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: LINK

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. 

6. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper and probable driver of vehicle registration mark XXXX XXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

7. Neither the PCN initially issued by the Claimant nor the POC specify an accurate or detailed location of parking. The POC does not state the postcode where the defendant’s vehicle was parked on DATE and DATE. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations in the event that the allocating Judge does not strike out the claim pursuant to the above two authorities.

8. It is admitted that on DATE and DATE the Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked at HOME ADDRESS because this was the defendant’s home, where they were de facto authorised to park a roadworthy vehicle.

9. Maintaining the residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property does not include allowing everyone to be unfairly charged by a lurking ex-wheelclamper for attending to normal life necessities like parking to unload groceries or setting down passengers, etc.  Clearly there is no 'legitimate interest' supporting these enhanced parking charges in these circumstances.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

10. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of HOME ADDRESS, whose leaseholder agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. A copy of the leasehold agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

11. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

12. Accordingly it is denied that:
12.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
12.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

I have included points 4 to 30 from the template defence and renumbered them appropriately.

Is there anything that needs changing or adding.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

You know from the headings in the template defence that the claimant is not the solicitor. Have another look at the headings!

Defence looks good!

MuscleMissile

Ah yes, bit daft from me!

Thank you!

1505grandad

For completeness could you post a copy of the claim form redacting name, address, VRM, password, reference numbers and QR codes leaving all dates showing. Thanks.