CEL Defence Help

190eman

Gr1pr said:

Correct,  the person named on the claim form must defend it as the defendant,  which is not you

You can do the heavy lifting as a personal assistant,  but you cannot put your name on it

Its all done under the name shown on the claim form,  so if that is your partner, the keeper,  then only they can submit the paperwork,  in their name,  preferably with their email address,  even if you do all their paperwork on their behalf 

Your partner is defending the court claim,  as the non driving keeper 

Please reply stating that you understand,  that it cannot have your name on it 

Ps, no exhibits are included with the defence,  so no receipts

I understand my name cannot be on it now  

190eman

Gr1pr said:

Correct,  the person named on the claim form must defend it as the defendant,  which is not you

You can do the heavy lifting as a personal assistant,  but you cannot put your name on it

Its all done under the name shown on the claim form,  so if that is your partner, the keeper,  then only they can submit the paperwork,  in their name,  preferably with their email address,  even if you do all their paperwork on their behalf 

Your partner is defending the court claim,  as the non driving keeper 

Please reply stating that you understand,  that it cannot have your name on it 

Ps, no exhibits are included with the defence,  so no receipts

i understand now Thank you both!

Gr1pr

The AOS that you say you did should have been done using your partners government gateway and then logging into MCOL,  so I would hope that you did it via their gateway and not yours

190eman

Gr1pr said:

The AOS that you say you did should have been done using your partners government gateway and then logging into MCOL,  so I would hope that you did it via their gateway and not yours

it was done on mine , as i dont have access to my partners emails at the moment and shes not in a good state to be pesting with this, trying to keep everything running smoothly as a 1 man band and dealing with this along with all the other house hold duties is hard xD

Coupon-mad

We are worried because that means the AOS isn't valid. So you (as her) need to get the defence in on MCOL tonight. Not by email.

To make it fit in the DEFENCE box, remove the second half of the Template Defence including the statement of truth/signature & date

...and remove all the headings which are obviously not needed if she's putting a defence in on MCOL in the 'start defence' box.

Make sure her details are entered, not yours, except she CAN supply your email of course, no reason why she can't give that if it means any email will be seen quicker.

You MUST hit 'SUBMIT' once the (shorter than usual) defence words are in the box.

Then check the MCOL history to make sure it shows as in.

190eman

So just to double check 

This leaves me with 31 lines left , would be whats required to input?

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. 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: 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, 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 registered keeper and driver.
6. The Defendant was not the driver at the time 
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 lines.

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.



31. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many 
District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that 
are causing consumer harm. The claim itself relies on an unfair 
charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.
32. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:
(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to 
CPR 27.14, and
(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and 
further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 
33.  Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility 
of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR 
r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's 
costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' 
apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). 
However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the 
normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case 
allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of 
discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be 
awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."   

190eman

With the numbers corrected of course 

190eman

I dont know how to edit my Post sorry , only need to put in points 1 to 6 i would say 

Gr1pr

No problem,  you will be able to edit posts when your status changes from newbie to forumite

I totally agree with coupon mad,  because I dont believe that your AOS was valid, hence plan b suggested by coupon mad,  putting in the defence on MCOL  using your partners login details,  ( but I think that you need more than 6 paragraphs   )

190eman

am not really sure what else i could add to it , i dont know how to correctly word a legal document , and am i dont want just add loads of cases in which other people have won that dont relate to this ( which they all do in there own right )