DCB Legal & First Parking - 2 x university parking court claims 3 weeks apart

Pandemonium78

@Coupon-mad

Ok so this is different to the defence in my first court claim in which the POC said the breach was not paying or registering the vehicle.

That being the case, as per your most recent template that means I only need briefly refer to CEL v CHAN... etc

3.  EITHER:

IF THE POC FAIL TO STATE THE BREACH BRIEFLY REFER TO CEL v CHAN & CPMS v AKANDE. SEE LINK BELOW. This is all you need unless you have something very important to add:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81570648/#Comment_81570648

Version from above link is copied below:

3. With regards to the POC in question, 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. 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'."

Coupon-mad

Yep and add a para 4 about cause oif action estoppel (Henderson v Henderson) then renumber the paras of the new short template and submit it online.

Then do the public consultation with us this month when you have time.

Pandemonium78

OK. 
Am hoping the cause of action estoppel para doesn't tip the line count over for MCOL.
I can try to shorten it.
I will in any case email my defence as well as submit via MCOL as per the new instructions.
I did get a letter in the post acknowledging receipt of the defence for the first court claim.

Coupon-mad

It won't - but if I'm wrong, just remove the last para of the defence. That's been done several times this past month by Defendants and you can just safely drop that bit. No defence meaning is lost by removing it.

Le_Kirk

If you find yourself up against a limit, @Coupon-mad usually recommends leaving out paragraph #10 (from the template).

Pandemonium78

Another question, am really picking into the details here - does cause of action estoppel apply given that the POC of the first claim state the specific breach, and the POC of the second does not, ie they are not identical particulars like the cause of action estoppel para states?

Gr1pr

Pandemonium78 said:

OK. 
Am hoping the cause of action estoppel para doesn't tip the line count over for MCOL.
I can try to shorten it.

1) I will in any case email my defence

2) as well as submit via MCOL as per the new instructions.

I did get a letter in the post acknowledging receipt of the defence for the first court claim.

1) definitely not,  it's no longer recommended and your new defence will be incomplete by email 

2) correct,  submit on MCOL only  !

Coupon-mad

Pandemonium78 said:

Another question, am really picking into the details here - does cause of action estoppel apply given that the POC of the first claim state the specific breach, and the POC of the second does not, ie they are not identical particulars like the cause of action estoppel para states?

I thought the same because I am pedantic too! But I decided yes it does. Worth adding