Free Traffic Legal Advice

With apologies for the delay. It's been one of those days. NtO to follow - if I can find it. Haven't searched yet.

Hopefully, this link will work. Otherwise, let me know.

https://imgur.com/a/MvMptrZ

With an issue date of 16th September, you have until Saturday 5th October to submit your Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). Follow the advice in this PDF to submit your AoS:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

There is nothing to be gained by delaying the AoS. Once the AoS has been filed, you then have until 4pm on Monday 21st October to submit your defence.

Let us know when you have submitted the AoS and we will provide a short defence and accompanying draft order. As the Particulars of Claim (PoC) lack precise detail in respect of the factual and legal allegations they do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
 A preliminary matter will be introduced requesting that the claim be struck out.

We don’t need the NtK. The PoC should be sufficient in order to understand the allegation. They are not. To help you understand why not and why you will be asking for the court to strike out the claim, have a read of those two recent persuasive appeal judgments:

CEL v Chan

CPMS v Akande

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".

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

[Civil Enforcement Limited]
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant

---

DEFENCE

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:

(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.

3. The Defendant relies on two recent persuasive appeal cases:

(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)

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:

(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.

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:

This is a link to the Draft Order:

Draft Order for the short defence

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.

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?

OK, got it. And thx.

There’s nothing to edit in the Draft Order.

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.

I'm unclear as to what you mean by "authenticating 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

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;

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?

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.