Gladstones Claim

arkadsq

thank you found it :) will write my version and send draft here today so maybe you can give me some ideas :) thanks for all the help :)

arkadsq

should I change anything? :)

Gr1pr

The POC states, failure to pay or register, as the alleged breach

So i believe that your paragraph 3 needs more work

arkadsq

should I say something about going through second entrance where there was no tablet for registration and it should be at both entrances as it might be misleading?

Car1980

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82093828#Comment_82093828

Those are two different breaches. Did he not pay or did he not register? How should he know?

If you start admitting things there's no point complaining about the particulars.

You can add In Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan, the court held that the filings did not adequately set out the specific conduct or contractual breach committed by the driver.

It's not a case of zero information, so I wouldn't go the full no-pleaded defence, but it's worth complaining about either/or claims IMO.

arkadsq

should I say something about having multiple entrances without multiple tablets?

beside that the rest looks good? header and statement of truth and all layout?

thank you :)

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094149#Comment_82094149

Hang on, it's an Airport so why are you admitting to driving?

It's not relevant land so you'd be better removing 'and driver' from para 2 and saying as para 3:

3. The Defendant is unaware what, if any, contractual breach is alleged. The POC mention two different allegations: 'failure to pay or register' and also conflate two different bases of liability 'as driver and/or registered keeper' but the site is identified as a Premier Inn that is within the curtilage of Luton Airport. There is no keeper liability law applying to airports because - due to byelaws - such sites are entirely excluded from the POFA 2012 'relevant land' definition. The Defendant also doubts that the parking charge was £100 (as pleaded), nor does the Defendant believe or know that any notice about an obligation to 'register' within the premises, nor the signs in the car park, were sufficiently prominent to be 'bound to be seen'. The Claimant is put to strict proof if the claim proceeds to trial.

3.1. Several leading cases support the principle that statements of case must not conflate multiple causes of action, e.g. Boyse International Ltd v NatWest Markets Plc [2020] EWHC 1264 (Ch), where the High Court held that such "rolled-up" or vague pleadings breach CPR Part 16. Packaging multiple possible pleadings into highly condensed, general paragraphs, thus conflating separate causes of action or collapsing distinct allegations under generic either/or heads of breach or liability is insufficient.

3.1.1. It is submitted that the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4 as soon as it reaches a judge's box-work, it being a small sum and recognising that this is a legally represented Claimant who knew, or should have known, that POFA Schedule 4 does not apply in this case. The court's time and resources should not be stretched to indulge fresh pleadings under the circumstances.

3.2. (Add the usual Chan and Akande paragraphs linked twice in the Template defence thread for poorly pleaded statements of case. Copy them in).

You have space because you are emailing it.

You could even link HHJ Moloney's Beavis case transcript at the end of para 7. You'll find it in the thread by @JackR1

Coupon-mad

Do this TONIGHT and get it emailed.

Which email did the clerk say to use? Just checking it's not an out of date one!

As time is very tight and the CNBC are slow, head the subject line:

URGENT DEFENCE FOR CLAIM NO xxxxxxxx (defence not yet processed due to MCOL failure/error)

arkadsq

it wasnt airport, it was luton town centre

arkadsq

should I put some proper sigunature on it or just blank

JOHN SMITH