Moorside Legal Hearing

ray0121

I received a similar letter to thread here (won't let me post the link) from Moorside legal with a claim form attached a few months ago and now I've received a hearing date and have confirmed with the court that Moorside have paid the hearing fee. I'm due in court in a weeks time and just wanted some advice for how to go about it. I went through the process and followed the steps on the newbies thread i.e
- Filed an AOS
- Filed a defence with the following 6 paragraphs:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant POC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). 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 authority.

 

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. 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:

 

Full Akande transcript to go here: 

(won't let me put link here)

Full Chan transcript to go here:

(won't let me put link here) 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, 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 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 but not the driver.

5. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was issued on 05/03/2022.  Paragraph 3 is neither admitted nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof that the vehicle "was parked in breach" of an unspecified term. The POC fails to specify any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract', nor do they even state what the supposed 'term' was or how the driver allegedly breached it. Paragraph 4 is denied; whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, they were not the driver, who did not 'agree to pay within 28 days'. It is not accepted that any prominent term was capable of binding the driver to any charge or deadline to pay. The Defendant is not liable and the Claimant has not even stated whether or not they can rely on the optional 'keeper liability' provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA'). The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £160 on private land). The Claimant has failed to break down the heads of cost: in fact the added £60 is not part of the supposed PCN at all; it is a false 'fee' which was never paid to any third party, cannot attract interest and appears to be their solicitor's attempt at double recovery, being an abuse added in addition to the MoJ's intended 'capped' £50 legal fee. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations (whatever they are) and the basis under which the Defendant vehicle keeper is being pursued for a sum which exceeds the 'maximum sum' set out in the POFA.

 6. The driver, at the time of the incident, called into the Eaton house offices due to the driver feeling unwell and suffering from a stomach bug. The vehicle was parked for around 5-10 minutes whilst the driver took medication in a safe manner without causing obstruction on an already tight and hazardous road.

6.1. The driver had not noticed any signage close to the where the vehicle was parked showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist.

6.2. The driver, at the time of parking, did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the parked vehicle's location, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions. It was only upon a subsequent revisit to the area that several critical facts about the signage were established. Firstly, the sign is set on a pony wall, a wall which is very small in height, meaning the sign would not be visible to a parked car. Secondly, signage at this location does not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be seen by a driver at night due to there being no direct lighting over the signage and certainly could not be read without stopping.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I said I'll be due in court next week, any advice? Do I take a written statement to read out?
My first time in court...

Gr1pr

Your court order with the hearing date tells both parties what to do and by when

It has a deadline for submitting your WS plus your Exhibits bundle to Moorside and to the court,  typically 2 to 4 weeks before the hearing date,  so study it and get it done if not done already 

The newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum,  second post explains the WS stage and the hearing 

Yes you can take a written copy to the court,  just in case 

No you won't be reading it out, you may be saying very little,  the judge will explain the process 

You should read a few recent concluded hearing cases on here,  to read the feedback etc

Coupon-mad

The recent WS by

@aza123

includes the usual stuff about Chan & Akande.