Letter of claim: CE LTD response to claimant

Coupon-mad

Please show us the POC.

Adrian1999

Here it is.

Coupon-mad

Car1980 said:

1. Acknowledge service
2. Use the new template defence, incorporating a brief paragraph that you parked, were a patient with a valid GP appointment, did not see any signage and even if you had entered into a contract there is no legitimate interest in attempting to charge genuine users of the surgery.
3. Use MCOL
4. Sit back and wait to see what your FOI comes back with, and look out for the directions questionnaire in the post.

If it goes to the witness statement stage, then you can give a lot more information with photographs etc.

Do the above but with added wording in para 3 about Chan and Akande.

You can copy from other wording if you search but DON'T copy the old long defence. Just the wording about Chan and Akande.

If all that doesn't fit when you try to save it in MCOL, just remove the final paragraph of the template, which is OK to prune.

DO NOT USE EMAIL.

Adrian1999

My draft below. Thanks in advance.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO.:

Between

Civil Enforcement LIMITED (Claimant)

-          And –

Myself (Defendant)

1.       The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2.       The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

The facts known to the defendant

3.1   The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. On January 25th 2024, The Defendant was for the legitimate purpose attending a GP appointment at the medical centre, of whom the car park serves. Until that month, parking at the site had always been free, enforced locally. The defendant, unbeknownst of the new enforcement, does not recall seeing signs prior to attending the appointment due to poor coverage at the time. Where at follow-up inspection, limited signage seen at the entrance of the car park, when turning off a busy road. The Defendant asserts poor coverage of signage is still on-going and is a concern for members of the public seeking medical care.

3.2   Referring to the POC, appears not to specifically indicate of whom is alleged to carry out conduct of ‘entry/parking’ as agreement to a contract (Breaches CPR 16.4(1)(a)) – furthermore, where the defendant as driver or as registered keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFa 2012 (Breaches CPR 16.4(1)(e)). The Claimant merely states a breach of ‘terms/conditions (TCs)’ as a vague one-size-fits-all terminology without specific action to which terms or conditions have been breached (over-stay, no ticket, wrong bay) (16PD7.5).

3.3   With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgements 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. (i) On August 2023, 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'. This is same in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. (ii) The second persuasive appeal judgement  On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'.

CEL v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44); Car Park Management Service LTD v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30)

3.4   The quantum is hugely exaggerated and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. Whilst it is known the car park is not a pay & display, or requires any fee, the signage does not further quantify added cost/damages. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations in the event that the allocating Judge does not strike out the claim pursuant to the above two authorities.

[followed template points 4-10 if fits into MCOL].

Coupon-mad

That's not the new template defence.   

Adrian1999

I clearly cannot follow instructions. See above the amended draft.

Question, I am unclear on regards to admit keeper and driver - if and when is this required?

Coupon-mad

The Chan and Akande version of wording should be as per the link in the Template Defence especially for Civil Enforcement cases. None of that had to be written from scratch. It's already linked in the Template Defence para 3 instructions.

The CEL Costa defence written by another poster this afternoon gets it right.

Adrian1999

Coupon-mad said:

The Chan and Akande version of wording should be as per the link in the Template Defence especially for Civil Enforcement cases. None of that had to be written from scratch. It's already linked in the Template Defence para 3 instructions.

The CEL Costa defence written by another poster this afternoon gets it right.

Did you mean CEL Costco? If so, that took a little while to find haha. 

Right updated to contain the complete chan and akande wording. Sorry I took the, don't copy the old long defence as, to write a shortened version.   

Coupon-mad

Did you mean CEL Costco?

Ah yes I did - sorry - my bad! We don't have Costco in my neck of the woods so clearly I was more in the coffee shop zone in my head!

Le_Kirk

Adrian1999 said:

1.       The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2.       The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper A and driver/but not the driver.

The facts known to the defendant

3.1   The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. On January 25th 2024, The Defendant was for the legitimate purpose attending a GP appointment at the medical centre, of whom which the car park serves. Until that month, parking at the site had always been free, enforced locally. The defendant, unbeknownst not knowing of the new enforcement, does not recall seeing signs prior to attending the appointment due to poor coverage at the time lack of signs. Where at follow-up inspection, limited signage seen at the entrance of the car park, when turning off a busy road. The Defendant asserts poor coverage of signage is still on-going and is a concern for members of the public seeking medical care. Those two sentences do not make sense or are duplicate.

3.2   Referring to the POC, appears not to specifically indicate of whom is alleged to carry out conduct of ‘entry/parking’ as agreement to a contract (Breaches CPR 16.4(1)(a)) – furthermore, where the defendant as driver or as registered keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFa 2012 (Breaches CPR 16.4(1)(e)). The Claimant merely states a breach of ‘terms/conditions (TCs)’ as a vague one-size-fits-all terminology without specific action to which terms or conditions have been breached (over-stay, no ticket, wrong bay) (16PD7.5).

3.3   With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgements 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. (i) On August 2023, 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'. This is same in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. (ii) The second persuasive appeal judgement  On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'.

CEL v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44); Car Park Management Service LTD v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30)

3.4   The quantum is hugely exaggerated and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. Whilst it is known the car park is not a pay & display, or requires any fee, the signage does not further quantify added cost/damages. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations in the event that the allocating Judge does not strike out the claim pursuant to the above two authorities.

If you are going to use any of this as your defence, some suggestions above. A. choose one or the other.  Paragraph #3.2 does not make any sense (to me) but is covered in #3.3 by Chan & Akande