CEL Defence Help

Coupon-mad

190eman said:

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 ) 

Why are 3 paragraphs numbered as 31-33? Obviously she doesn't go from para 8 to para 33 so just renumber those as 9,10 and 11. You should also see if she can add back in the Template para about the Consumer Rights Act. Of course numbered as para 12.

She also has this for some reason?

"and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver." 

then she has this: 

"6. The Defendant was not the driver at the time"

Makes no sense.

190eman

Coupon-mad said:

190eman said:

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 ) 

Why are 3 paragraphs numbered as 31-33? Obviously she doesn't go from para 8 to para 33 so just renumber those as 9,10 and 11. You should also see if she can add back in the Template para about the Consumer Rights Act. Of course numbered as para 12.

She also has this for some reason?

"and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver." 

then she has this: 

"6. The Defendant was not the driver at the time"

Makes no sense.

Yea sorry i was unable to edit this is what i have so far now , i had an error with the " so they have been removed along with the AND DRIVER part i also added the bit on the end so its not as short if that matter?

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.

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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

190eman

i have also managed to get the the Consumer Rights Act. on the bottom 

Coupon-mad

I think expand on this para 6 by saying that her husband was driving and he was at the location - and say why he was there - but that no breach of terms occurred and the Claimant is put to strict proof and to explain on what basis the keeper is being pursued.

6. The Defendant was not the driver at the time

You should also see if she can add back in the Template para about the Consumer Rights Act. Of course numbered as para 11 or 12.

190eman

Coupon-mad said:

I think expand on this para 6 by saying that her husband was driving and he was at the location - and say why he was there - but that no breach of terms occurred and the Claimant is put to strict proof and to explain on what basis the keeper is being pursued.

6. The Defendant was not the driver at the time

You should also see if she can add back in the Template para about the Consumer Rights Act. Of course numbered as para 11 or 12.

Great idea thats been added in and now sent off , i will play the waiting game to see what they do next hopefully they leave me alone for a few weeks while i get settled into having the new born around , Thank you both for your help.

i will update if i get anything back on this thread  

Coupon-mad

Make sure MCOL History shows the defence is well and truly in.

Then enjoy the baby and family time! Enjoy it!  I am a mum of four. Lovely time. Mine are all adults now.

  

Gr1pr

The 12 steps in the defence template thread in announcements explains the process,  so as they follow a pattern we all know what comes next, and after that,  and after that too

After checking her MCOL claim history shows its a defended claim,  just make sure that she follows her part in the 12 steps,  no going off piste,  if in doubt,  check with us , and always check the mcol claim history once a week,  until they transfer it to a court near you , the one she will nominate in the N180 DQ document in several weeks time 

And my congratulations to you both too