CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD - Court Claim (CEL: S. Wilson)

justcause

Coupon-mad said:

Search the forum for

Civil Enforcement S Wilson claim

The POC it's ambiguous, doesn't state what actual breach occurred?

Yes, but this isn't new. You should already know from reading the Template Defence thread which version of wording to use.  

thank you, I will have a look.

justcause

So I have had a look through the forum and have slightly amended the ending of paragraph 2 to

"The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and not the driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

My defence as I am the registered keeper but was not the driver. (Copied from another defence on here, minimonsta))

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’.

How does that sound?

Coupon-mad

Plus the usual extra bit about a claim form signed with an initial 'S Wilson' (instead of full name of signatory) also breaching the CPRs but you'll have found that already in another CEL thread because that point is always added for their claims.

justcause

Coupon-mad said:

Plus the usual extra bit about a claim form signed with an initial 'S Wilson' (instead of full name of signatory) also breaching the CPRs but you'll have found that already in another CEL thread because that point is always added for their claims.

I've tried looking for that part but can't seem to find it, bit of a minefield for me, any links at all please?

kryten3000

@justcause DM me if you are still stuck - this is local to me

Coupon-mad

justcause said:

Coupon-mad said:

Plus the usual extra bit about a claim form signed with an initial 'S Wilson' (instead of full name of signatory) also breaching the CPRs but you'll have found that already in another CEL thread because that point is always added for their claims.

I've tried looking for that part but can't seem to find it, bit of a minefield for me, any links at all please?

No but someone posted it only yesterday. Did you miss it when reading recent similar threads? We hardly have any CEL threads so it would be a cinch to find on the forum.

justcause

Coupon-mad said:

justcause said:

Coupon-mad said:

Plus the usual extra bit about a claim form signed with an initial 'S Wilson' (instead of full name of signatory) also breaching the CPRs but you'll have found that already in another CEL thread because that point is always added for their claims.

I've tried looking for that part but can't seem to find it, bit of a minefield for me, any links at all please?

No but someone posted it only yesterday. Did you miss it when reading recent similar threads? We hardly have any CEL threads so it would be a cinch to find on the forum.

I must have missed it, all I can find is this

3.8 The individual who signs a statement of truth must print their full name clearly beneath their signature."

justcause

UPDATED MY DEFENCE (due by 04/12/25 4pm)

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’. The individual who signs a statement of truth must print their full name clearly beneath their signature, which in this case and many others has not been adhered to and goes against CPR's, therefore this claim should be struck out.

Coupon-mad

No that's conflating two points.

The thread I'm thinking about was replied on again only yesterday. I saw it. Look back at CEL threads yesterday and you'll find it.

Ralph-y

"kryten3000 Posts: 873 Forumite   

18 November at 6:29PM

@justcause DM me if you are still stuck - this is local to me"

take up this offer ....