Claim Form - Moorside Legal Services - UKCPS

Coupon-mad

The Moorside Legal 'template' is old in that the facts used to be para 6. Whereas the new 10 paragraph defence puts facts (which could be a shortened Chan & Alande summary) at para 3.

COL_FB

So I'm using a combination of the 2 templates, which paragraph would my facts be?

Coupon-mad

Did you miss reading today's other threads? Someone has just done it:

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

COL_FB

Apologies, I had missed that. 

So just to be clear, I'm using the standard defence template and for my para 3 I'm using this: 

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

Unless you have anything else general but vital to add, such as:

-  it being a residential car park where residents have primacy of contract, or

- a shopping car park and you/a passenger are disabled, or

- it was a double dip (ANPR read error) or

- you appealed and were ignored.

COL_FB

None of those apply to me. 

From what I remember the specifics of my case are that the car park did not have a specific entrance with signage, the car park was not separated by curbs, walls fences or any of that, I was able to just drive into the space from the road. Also since looking back on google images the signs that were there were very small and I didn't see them from how I entered the carpark. 

The other thing is that I'm sure I was there for less than 10 minutes but I'm not sure if that makes and difference.

I think most of what I have said above is covered in the template defence. Unless you think I need to add anything from what I've said above?

Coupon-mad

No I think your para 3 and the rest of the template is sufficient at this stage. It covers signage and covert surveillance/lack of contractually agreed terms, giving you enough to expand on at WS & evidence stage, later.

See you back here in a week or two as we move onto a deeper discussion about the Public Consultation and how to respond. We need everyone.