Thanks for that. When I originally emailed bank park management to challenge the claim I never admitted liability. I didn't change the above much as I am struggling to break it down due to the urgency to send it but this is what I have sent:
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately
disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. 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 adequately comply with CPR
16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the
PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(b) 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;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why
the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or
contracts);
(d) 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. Furthermore, PoC fails to
evidence whether the defendant was actually parked on
the claimants car park- which it wasn't;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out
materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to
adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the
Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found
that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4,
rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that
the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of
claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do
not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not
set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms
and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and
(b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the
claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it
served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have
done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding
objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct
further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s
resources to this claim (for example by ordering further
particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case
management).
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay
this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this
Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing
which no such application may be made.
