DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 38365--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: b789
Date: September 26, 2024, 3:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the suggested defence. You only need to edit the
claimant (Civil Enforcement Ltd), the defendants full name, the
claim number and then sign it by typing the defendants name and
date it. The draft order does not need editing. For the two
transcripts linked to above, include a cover sheet for each one
labelled "Exhibit A – Transcript of CEL v Chan 2023" and
"Exhibit B -Transcript of CPMS v Akande 2024".
--- Quote ---
>
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
>
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> [Civil Enforcement Limited]
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> Preliminary matter
>
> 1. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) served by the Claimant are defective and fail to
comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The Defendant requests that the
court consider this matter as a preliminary issue and strike out
the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a), as the PoC disclose no
reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
>
> 2. In particular, the PoC:
>
> [indent](i) Fail to provide a concise statement of the facts
upon which the Claimant relies.
>
> (ii) Do not specify the exact contractual terms allegedly
breached.
>
> (iii) Lack sufficient detail to enable the Defendant to
understand the case and provide a full response.[/indent]
>
> 3. The Defendant relies on two recent persuasive appeal cases:
>
> [indent] (i) In CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44], the court struck
out the claim due to inadequate PoC that failed to meet the
requirements of CPR 16.4. (See attached Exhibit A)
>
> (ii) Similarly, in CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], the claim
was struck out due to vague and insufficient PoC, which did not
provide enough information for the Defendant to respond
appropriately. (See attached Exhibit B)[/indent]
>
> 4. In light of these deficiencies, the Defendant respectfully
submits that the claim should be struck out for failing to meet
the necessary legal standards.
>
> 5. Alternatively, should the court not agree to strike out the
claim, the Defendant requests that the Claimant be ordered to
provide amended or further Particulars of Claim that comply with
CPR 16.4, as detailed in the attached draft order referred to in
paragraph 9.
>
> Defendants Understanding of the Claim
>
> 6. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim and puts
the Claimant to full proof of any allegation.
>
> 7. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR
16.4.
>
> 8. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> [indent](a) The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a). The Claimant's vague statement that the Defendant
"parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the
signage" lacks the specific terms allegedly breached. This
prevents the Defendant from properly pleading a defence, and the
claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4;
>
> (b) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.5;
>
> (c) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
>
> (d) The PoC do not set out the reason (or reasons) why the
claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or
contracts);
>
> (e) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
>
> (f) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory
interest is calculated;
>
> (g) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (h) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as
the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether
the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and
should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of
action.[/indent]
>
> 9. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an
order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to
make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and
understand the case which they face and can then respond
properly to the claim.
>
> Statement of truth
>
> I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I
understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought
against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
>
> Signed:
>
> Date:
--- End Quote ---
This is a link to the Draft Order:
Draft Order for the short defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yjj8nwoc6sknmc9uawecf/short-defence-order-copy-3.pdf?rlkey=y3xyz2s8vumu0k3webocx9sza&st=mfxlgil6&dl=0
When everything is ready, the 4 documents (defence, Draft Order
2 transcripts) should be attached as PDF files to an email
addressed to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk. Also CC in
yourself.
The subject of the email must contain the claim number and in
the body just state that attached are the defence, draft order
and 2 transcripts in matter of "Civil Enforcement Ltd v
[Defendants name] Claim no.: [Claim number]". When it has been
sent, you should receive can auto-response from the CNBC almost
instantly. If it hasn't been received after a few minutes, try
again. If still no luck, try using a different email agent.
#Post#: 38369--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: September 26, 2024, 3:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okey dokey b789, and thx a bundle. If that doesn't shove a red
hot poker up their Pyloric Sphincter, I'm not quite sure what
will.
#Post#: 38466--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: September 26, 2024, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A minor query if I may. #9 refers to "... the allocating judge
...."
What precisely are they allocating? Allocated or presiding makes
more sense to me, but what do I know?
#Post#: 38468--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: b789
Date: September 26, 2024, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The "allocating" judge is also known as the "case management"
judge. Once the claim is allocated to the defendants local
court, a case management judge will review it and issue
directions (court orders).
This is the process of a claim:
--- Quote ---
> Claim Issued and Defence Filed: The claimant files a claim,
and the defendant submits their defence. The CNBC processes
these initial steps, and no judge is involved at this stage.
>
> Directions Questionnaire: Both parties are then asked to
complete a Directions Questionnaire, where they provide
information about the case, including which court they want the
case transferred to, and whether they want a hearing in person.
Still, at this point, no judge has reviewed the details of the
case.
>
> Transfer to Local County Court: Once the Directions
Questionnaires are submitted, the case is transferred from the
CNBC to the defendant’s local county court (or another court, if
specified).
>
> Case Management: After the case is transferred, a judge may
review the case file for the first time. This is typically done
during the allocation stage, where the judge allocates the case
to the appropriate track (Small Claims Track, Fast Track, or
Multi-Track), depending on the complexity and value of the
claim. The judge might issue case management directions, such as
setting deadlines for witness statements or fixing a hearing
date.
>
> Hearing Preparation: If the case proceeds to a hearing, a
judge will again review the case materials, including the claim,
defence, evidence, and witness statements, in preparation for
the hearing. This is when the judge examines the details
thoroughly before deciding.
>
> The judge's first real involvement is at the allocation and
case management stage, after the defence is filed and the case
is transferred to a local court.
--- End Quote ---
Often, the case management judge will intervene and issue
directions (court order) if there are any issues with the claim.
It is at this stage, hopefully, that the Draft Order will be
issued.
#Post#: 38483--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: September 26, 2024, 12:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, got it. And thx.
#Post#: 38493--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: September 26, 2024, 12:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Draft Order doesn't appear to have any ID/authenticating
info, such as date, name/location of court, name of judge, case
#, etc etc. Is that correct?
#Post#: 38521--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: b789
Date: September 26, 2024, 5:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There’s nothing to edit in the Draft Order.
#Post#: 38894--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: September 30, 2024, 4:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To be clear, I wasn't enquiring about editing it. I was asking
about the lack of authenticating detail, and whether the court
might reject it because of its absence in the document.
But OK, leaving that aside for now, I've now been thru the
defence, and it makes sense - except for one minor detail.
Before I file it, I'd like some clarification please.
--- Quote ---
> 5. Alternatively, should the court not agree to strike out the
claim .......... etc
--- End Quote ---
And then at 8(a):
--- Quote ---
> This prevents the Defendant from properly pleading a defence,
and the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4;
--- End Quote ---
But #5-9 represent the defence in the alternative in the event
that the court does not agree to strike out the claim as
requested at #1 and #4. How, then, can I ask the court again for
a strike out after it's already been refused? Why would the
court consider the request at the second time of asking?
#Post#: 38896--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: b789
Date: September 30, 2024, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Eryobotrya link ---
>
> To be clear, I wasn't enquiring about editing it. I was asking
about the lack of authenticating detail, and whether the court
might reject it because of its absence in the document.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm unclear as to what you mean by "authenticating detail"?
--- Quote from: Eryobotrya link ---
>
> Before I file it, I'd like some clarification please.
>
> [quote]5. Alternatively, should the court not agree to strike
out the claim .......... etc
--- End Quote ---
And then at 8(a):
--- Quote ---
> This prevents the Defendant from properly pleading a defence,
and the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4;
--- End Quote ---
But #5-9 represent the defence in the alternative in the event
that the court does not agree to strike out the claim as
requested at #1 and #4. How, then, can I ask the court again for
a strike out after it's already been refused? Why would the
court consider the request at the second time of asking?
[/quote]
The defence is not asking for a "strike out" a second time. It
is asking that an order for the Claimant to issue further PoC is
made. The defence is saying that the Claimant has failed to
comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). This is very specific and there is
"persuasive" appeals case history that the entire claim should
be struck out for this failure alone.
"Persuasive" means that it is not "binding" (compulsory)
because, whilst it is an "appeals court" decision, it would only
be "binding" if it was an appeal from a higher court such as a
crown court or the Supreme Court.
So, should the judge not be "persuaded" that the claim should be
struck out because of the failure to fully comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a), then the Defendant is stating that they are unable
to plead a proper defence because of all the other failures to
fully comply with the rest of CPR 16.4 and that the judge should
therefore issue the order as drafted, ordering the Claimant to
provide further PoC that fully comply with the order which would
then make it possible for the Defendant to plead a proper
defence.
Should the Claimant be able to fully comply with the draft
order, then the judge would order the Defendant to submit a new
defence to the CPR 16.4 compliant PoC.
This "short" defence and draft order were drafted with the
assistance of a long serving district judge. Most judges are as
fed up with the long boilerplate defences as they are with bulk
litigators issued poorly pleaded claims.
So, what the defence does is say that it is impossible to
properly defend the claim. It should be struck out or further
particulars should be ordered. To date, no claimant has managed
to fully comply with the order and has either discontinued or
had the claim struck out for non compliance.
Should this ever get to the point of a hearing, then it is
easily defended with a good Witeness Statement (WS). Not had to
do one yet.
#Post#: 38899--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: September 30, 2024, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> The defence is not asking for a "strike out" a second time.
--- End Quote ---
Hence my confusion. A strike out request is made at #1, 4 and
8(a). The first two are made under the 'Defects' defence. The
third under the 'Orders' defence. How is that not a second
request?
Are you saying that a strike out request can also be made under
the Orders defence? That's the only way I can reconcile the
apparent contradiction.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 18
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page