Group Nexus Court Claim - May 2025 - Defence Feedback needed

Sjw21

Hi all, 

Been a couple of years since I last submitted a court defence to a PCN but after reading all of the updated guidance and templates I'm now looking for feedback on my drafted response please.

Claim form attached. Issued on 7th May 2025 and AOS submitted on 12th so I have calculated that I have until 8th June (although poss 9th as the 8th is a Sunday) and hope I have calculated that correctly.

Rough background is leased car parked in EV spot at motorway services while not charging. 



I would appreciate feedback on the following please:

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').

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. A 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. 

(IMAGES of Chan case inserted here)

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:

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts 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 appears 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 lessee of the vehicle.

6.1. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 30/06/2024, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the lessee, 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.

6.2. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question nor who was driving with a total of 3 regular drivers named on the insurance policy of the vehicle in question and a further 2 occasional drivers who drive the vehicle under their own insurance policies. The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions. The signage does not comply with BPA code of Practice.

6.3. The claimant had failed to comply with British Parking Association Code of Practice with regards to photographic evidence.

Remained is rest of standard template.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

Those Particulars do state the breach (which CP Plus claims often don't). So you can't use Chan & Akande.

Use the usual Template Defence instead.

Sjw21

Thanks for the reply Coupon-mad. I've since removed paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 and re-numbered accordingly. Is the wording in 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 OK or any changes / additions suggested?

Coupon-mad

As long as it's the template defence it doesn't really matter what your facts paragraph 3 says because the claim will be discontinued by Christmas.

  

Sjw21

Ok great I will get it fired off and update accordingly 👍