Advice for Defence for overstay at private car park - Gladstones

minimonsta

So I've used the extra wording template with the links to cel v akande etc for this case as its with Gladstones and the POC is so vague simply saying 'was parked in breach of terms of parking on the signage'.

Now this was almost a year and a half ago so in all honestly I can barely remember the details but think the original letter (which I no longer have) was for overstaying, I think by about 15minutes. Now I'm pretty sure I wasn't driving at the time but in all honesty I can't be sure, I know I was there but had a very small baby at the time and was most likely just a passenger.

My question is, in point 6 of my defence, where I'm adding basic facts of my case, should I even mention the overstay? Or even that I was there? Or simply something like:

"With regards to this specific case, the defendant is aware that the driver had a valid ticket for the car park and was unaware of breaching any terms of parking"

Coupon-mad

You aren't using a defence with facts at point 6. I changed the template a month ago.

minimonsta

Ah, I see where I got confused. Am now back to up to date template and have simply added at the end of paragrpah two that the defendant wasn't driver and then added the two cases of Chan and Akande into paragraph 3 instead. I've not added any information about the events. So all as template except for:

"...The Defendant, has little recollection of events considering this was more than a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

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

Perfect Gladstones or Moorside new defence example!