Civil Enforcement - Novotel Cherry Lane - Court Claim

fivestarsamz

Hello, here is another one from Civil Enforcement directly.

Novotel on Cherry Lane near Heathrow. I don't think it is within the Byelaws Land.

Driver is a private hire driver who works with a company that has an office in the Novotel hotel. They also have a little "break room" for drivers to come and relax for a break if needed. Drivers are allowed to authorise themselves on the company app to park for free in the Novotel car park.

On this day, the driver needed to use the facilities and forgot to authorise himself on the app.
We tried to get the company to get it cancelled but they said they cannot or don't anymore.

Anyway, we are at court claim stage.

I am writing up the defence. I will use the Chan and Akande template. The main concern I have is, is point 3 okay? As in, is it okay to admit that the driver forgot to authorise his car?



Here are my points 2, 3 and 4.

2. The allegation is denied and liability for the sum claimed is denied. The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle and was operating it as a licensed private hire vehicle. The Defendant recalls that the vehicle attended the site for the purpose of using the office of Airport Pickup London (APL).

3. On the material date, the Defendant was using the toilet facilities at the hotel. The Defendant is a contractor with APL who authorise their contractors to use the Car Park at the location for free. This must be verified using the APL app where the motorist must submit the vehicle VRM to get the free parking. The Defendant may have forgot to submit their VRM on this app.

4. 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'."

Thank you all!

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 14/09/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 19/10/26

I would keep the story for the witness statement; as the POC are sparse, just use the template defence including Chan & Akande

fivestarsamz

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82164566#Comment_82164566

okay noted.

Here is the new point 2, and 3. The rest will be from the template.

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 registered keeper.

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'."

Clean and simple. Is this okay?

Gr1pr

Not quite , lose the spurious " at the end of paragraph 3

Le_Kirk

The template defence suggests an ending to paragraph #2, such as "and driver" or "but not the driver".