CC claim form: Parking Eye/ DCB Legal

Eggsbenedict72 · 16 April at 5:44PM

Hi,

My gf has recieved a CC claim form for a case brought by the aforementioned. She has filed the AoS today. As of right now, the drafted defence is just the template defence with paragraph 3 being something I have taken from a recommended post, regarding the Chan and Akande cases, which I will - perhaps unnecessarily - post at the bottom of this post. Wording in the PoC contains the seemingly common (from what I gather from trawling the forum) vague and undetailed reason "Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions."

Now my question is, is this likely to be enough of a defence on its own, or do I/ we need to add some more personalised detail?

A bit of context:

Car may or may not have briefly 'parked' in the car park (20-30 mins maybe) while driver was picking up a friend from said friend's flat, which is about 10m from the car park. Didn't leave the car, which is probably irrelevant. Car park is at the end of a residential street, which has double yellow lines all the way along the road and literally no street parking. There are just 3 allocated spaces for the block of flats, all of which were occupied. It was evening and the car park was completely empty. University owned car park, permit holders only.

I do not believe that any of that information will help the case, therefore I/ we have not included it in the defence. Hoping that the Chan/ Akande failure to comply with CPR 16.4 etc is enough.

Complained to landowner/ University but was ignored. No appeals made to Parking Eye or POPLA etc.

Thank you in advance for any help/ advice/ information.

Para 3:

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'.