Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • elrme
    • By elrme 12th Sep 17, 12:48 AM
    • 5Posts
    • 1Thanks
    elrme
    Directions Questionnaire
    • #1
    • 12th Sep 17, 12:48 AM
    Directions Questionnaire 12th Sep 17 at 12:48 AM
    I have received a Directions questionnaire following submission of my defence....

    Intend to defend via the small claims route.

    Is this the correct initial post to start my own thread?
Page 1
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 12th Sep 17, 1:04 AM
    • 1,174 Posts
    • 2,334 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #2
    • 12th Sep 17, 1:04 AM
    • #2
    • 12th Sep 17, 1:04 AM
    If you want it to be.

    Read the NEWBIES thread, post #2 to learn all about the small claims process, including the DQ stage.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Sep 17, 10:57 AM
    • 843 Posts
    • 954 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:57 AM
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:57 AM
    Also show us your defence, and maybe a little detail
    But for sure the actual submitted defence.

    The DQ is easy to fill out, and not overall as important as the defence argument already submitted. which you only (formally) get to add to by paying £255, so fingers crossed it was a good one!
    • elrme
    • By elrme 12th Sep 17, 6:26 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    elrme
    • #4
    • 12th Sep 17, 6:26 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Sep 17, 6:26 PM
    I deny that I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
    1. The Claim Form issued on the XX XXX 2017 by HX Car Park Management Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction and it is not a valid statement of truth.
    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
    a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ under the Practice Direction.
    b) The Claim form Particulars are extremely sparse. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
    c) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted or alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information; Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge with a copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage). If keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter.
    d) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
    3. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case. a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs. b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant. c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver.
    4. The Claimant has no evidence to prove that the vehicle was within the car park during the alleged parking time, there is no calibration certificate held or provided by the claimant and the ‘Entrance’ and ‘Exit’ to the car park are not clearly demarcated from other parking areas nor the public highway.
    5. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original amount Claimed for an alleged parking charge. There is a reasonable belief that subsequent charges have not been incurred and were added to inflate the claim. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    6. No standing: It is believed that HX Car Park Management Limited do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.
    7. No legitimate interest: The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter. The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action.
    The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.
    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
    • elrme
    • By elrme 12th Sep 17, 6:29 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    elrme
    • #5
    • 12th Sep 17, 6:29 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Sep 17, 6:29 PM
    Thanks, I used this:

    A1 = NO to mediation (they want the whole amount, you want to pay them nothing, so no scope for mediation. This will not go against you)
    B = fill in all the details, name, address, etc
    C1 = YES to small claims track – this is the limited costs track for claims up to £10,000 in value
    D1 = name of your local County Court – unless you are a Ltd company, the case files will be transferred there
    D2 = NO to expert evidence (this relates to medical negligence cases and suchlike)
    D3 = 1 witness (that’s you) (or more if you are going to get another person to provide a statement)
    D4 = Put down the dates of any pre-booked holidays, NO to interpreter (unless you need one).
    Note: Gladstones are currently including a 'request for special directions' asking the Court to hear the case on the papers only, without an oral hearing. You should oppose this, and include the following text in D1: “The Defendant opposes the Claimant’s request for special directions, and requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the defendant’s home court, pursuant to CPR 26.2A(3)”.
    • elrme
    • By elrme 12th Sep 17, 6:34 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    elrme
    • #6
    • 12th Sep 17, 6:34 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Sep 17, 6:34 PM
    The details are:
    I was at work and the claimant has ANPR photo of the car to which I am the RK.
    They obtained my detail from DVLA and have sent a Claim via CCBC.
    • elrme
    • By elrme 5th Nov 17, 9:42 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    elrme
    • #7
    • 5th Nov 17, 9:42 PM
    • #7
    • 5th Nov 17, 9:42 PM
    I have now received a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing).

    Can anyone assist with guidance if I upload the documents received to date?

    hxxp://s50.photobucket.com/user/elrme/library/
    Last edited by elrme; 05-11-2017 at 9:49 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Nov 17, 9:47 PM
    • 4,469 Posts
    • 2,791 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 5th Nov 17, 9:47 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Nov 17, 9:47 PM
    I have now received a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing).

    Can anyone assist with guidance if I upload the documents received to date?
    Originally posted by elrme
    The guidance you need has already been written.

    You should already be closely following the guidance offered on post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.
    .
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 6th Nov 17, 12:47 AM
    • 1,593 Posts
    • 2,700 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #9
    • 6th Nov 17, 12:47 AM
    • #9
    • 6th Nov 17, 12:47 AM
    So you're not denying in your defence that you were driving, neither are you claiming that a failure to comply with POFA means the NtK was not valid and so you can't be liable as RK either?

    Was the NtK POFA compliant?
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 6th Nov 17, 2:12 AM
    • 1,693 Posts
    • 3,088 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Was the NtK POFA compliant?
    Looks like a non-POFA one as they are claiming they will assume the RK is the driver.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 6th Nov 17, 8:15 AM
    • 1,593 Posts
    • 2,700 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    The defence doesn't deny he's driving. And if he's saying its non POFA compliant then he needs to make that clear. However, I think it's ok because the rule about defences says that if you don't specifically deny or not-admit something it is assumed you put the C to full proof (I think). And he can then deal with it in the WS.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 6th Nov 17, 8:34 AM
    • 650 Posts
    • 1,230 Thanks
    Johnersh
    PD16 10.2 defence should reply to all allegations in PoC

    CPR 16(3) states (as LoadsofChildren123 correctly recalls)
    A defendant who –
    (a) fails to deal with an allegation; but
    (b) has set out in his defence the nature of his case in relation to the issue to which that allegation is relevant, shall be taken to require that allegation to be proved.


    This means that if the defence is wholly silent on a specific allegation you are taken to admit it.

    Personally, I'd recommend greater clarity on POFA if you are going to use it to argue that statute does allow a PPC to bring a claim against a driver, but here they're not availing themselves of that etc. I'd want to signpost it now, since you may have to walk a DJ through the requirements at a hearing.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,985Posts Today

8,272Users online

Martin's Twitter