County Court CEL inhouse

Coupon-mad

No this isn't an appeal.

Remove all that. You aren't meant to add any facts at all when arguing Chan & Akande.

I did tell you this already:

"Just use the special Chan & Akande linked para 3 within the Template Defence, so you don't need to draft anything."

Gr1pr

Dont add the above, save it for the future WS

Its not an appeal either its too late for any appeal

Just use the Chan and Akande defence paragraph 3 and slot it into the 10 paragraph defence template

No additions, no stories at this early stage

Shaf_1

Hi im so sorry for the confusion again, do i not add any anything at all and just add the template:

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'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the driver.

3. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

4. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

5. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.

6. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

7. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

8. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy. 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'."

9. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'. 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’. The individual who signs a statement of truth must print their full name clearly beneath their signature, which in this case and many others has not been adhered to and goes against CPR's, therefore this claim should be struck out.

10. In the event the claim progresses, then as an unrepresented litigant in person, I reserve the right to alter, vary and add to this defence or reply to any further particulars of claim/documents the Claimant may provide. I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

Signed

Shaf_1

Hi please ignore above:

Shaf_1

Please could you check my statment as my deadline is tommorow and I will not be submitting a counter claim;

Thanks in advance; and sorry for the confused posts;

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does notcomply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all factsnecessary for the purpose of formulating a complete causeof action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added afalse'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). Thissum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt atdouble recovery, which is unreasonable conductunder CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment inParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015]UKSC 67 held that an £85 parkingcharge more than covered all the'costs of enforcement' which HHJMoloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and asimple automated letterchain, including a LBC. The same heads ofcost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also bedisallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are goodreason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strikeout the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s)are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all.The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, makingretrieving material evidence difficult, which is highlyprejudicial. The Defendant admits that they were the driver.

3.With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appealjudgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.E7GM9W44) andCar Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref.K0DP5J30) wouldindicate the POC fails to comply with Civil ProcedureRule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. Onthe 15thAugust 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars ofthe claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct whichamounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant wouldbe able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is truein this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strikeout the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. Thesecond recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typicalprivate parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16.On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particularsof Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party reliesin order to prove his or her claim'.The driver was authorised andscheduled to work on the site/surgery and registered correctly.The business has contacted the company, CEL to cancel the claimunsuccessfully.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a termwas breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer,acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). TheConsumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' dutyon Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and'consumer notices'.Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 &18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, theDefendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear(unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, thiscase looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof withcontemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only suppliedon the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant(an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and theterms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including thecontract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set bythe landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. Toimpose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and(ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevantobligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is apenalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poorsigns and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished fromBeavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 ofBeavis (an £85 PC covered all costsand generated a huge profitshared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirmingwhat that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield StoresChD[2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis andstands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse.HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified bythe CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from£37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of aletter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should notethat HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking(Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators anddebt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a PublicConsultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery'fees',which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money frommotorists’. Both the previous and present Governments foundthat the high profits may be indicative of firms having too muchcontrol 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding ofunreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking casesnow make up a third of all small claims which has overburdenedHMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariablydiscontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates adeliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimantsliable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally'apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book hasthis annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does notapply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims trackserves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contendedthat costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably(r.27.14(2)(dg))'. With regards to the POC in question, tworecent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited vChan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande(Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with CivilProcedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. Onthe 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'theparticulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out theconduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which theclaimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'.The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that theCourt should strike out the extant claim, using its powerspursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgmentalso held that typical private parking case POC (like this) failto comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJEvans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic factsupon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim’. Theindividual who signs a statement of truth must print their fullname clearly beneath their signature, which in this case and manyothers has not been adhered to and goes against CPR's, thereforethis claim should be struck out.

Gr1pr

Paragraph 3 has been duplicated from halfway through Paragraph 9, so delete the latter half ( its twice as long as it should be. )

No Paragraph 10 in the above draft , its there in the defence template !

A lot of spaces are missing, perhaps due to formatting issues , so some words are joined together, unless its a fault here with the forum editor, so may need fixing

Coupon-mad

Move this from the end of para 3 to the end of para 2 instead:

"The driver was authorised andscheduled to work on the site/surgery and registered correctly.The business has contacted the company, CEL to cancel the claimunsuccessfully."