County Court Claim Form received : Claimant is SIP

zzzLazyDaisy

Looks great to me

SpaceCowboy55

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would reply and say:

'Not only have you failed to send a compliant NTK in time - so have failed to establish registered keeper liability under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 - but you have failed to reply to previous letters and are now refusing to enter into correspondence when a defendant asks you simple questions. Your particulars of claim, your breakdown of alleged 'loss' and your entire legal status to enter into contracts or pursue charges regarding this land, are so far unclear so I am perfectly entitled to ask the questions I did, and have solid grounds for asking, so you should respond in a timely manner. I would point out that a small claim by a private parking company was lost today on the very point that only the landowner can bring such a claim (Claim No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court, 23/10/2013 - before District Judge Jenkins, Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd).

For your information I have made an official complaint about your conduct to the BPA Ltd (AOS Compliance Manager) and can of course ask the court to make an order for you to respond to my questions, if you still refuse to co-operate with an unrepresented defendant who simply needs to establish some information. I invite you now to reconsider your position, and either cancel this claim as it has no prospects of success, or respond properly to my previous questions in a professional manner, within seven days, because time is of the essence.'

Daisy might well see this and suggest better phraseology!

Done - and sent off - thank you

SpaceCowboy55

N180 has arrived ( Directions questionnaire ( Small Claims Track ) : I had stored guidance below when preparing defence

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4585747 post#2 from bargepole

Can anyone confirm if it is indeed guidance to be followed?

I am particularly interested in the question on mediation

" The questions on it should be answered as follows:

i) Settlement – Do You Wish To Use The Mediation Service? – Generally, the advice is to say No to this. The PPC’s position is that they want the full amount of the claim; your position is that they have no case, and you owe them nothing. It may be, in cases where it was a Pay & Display car park, and you either didn’t pay at all or overstayed the time paid for, that you could opt for Mediation, and offer them the relevant amount of the hourly parking charge. They almost certainly won’t accept it, but it strengthens your position if it goes to Court and you can demonstrate that you offered to make good their actual losses.

ii) Location of Hearing – This is where you get the case transferred to your local Court, normally the County Court nearest to your home address.

iii) Track – it needs to be on the Small Claims Track. Costs are very limited on this track, normally around £50 or so.

iv) Witnesses / Expert Evidence – Both of these are Not Applicable

v) Dates – Put down any dates on which you are unavailable to attend Court, eg pre-booked holidays.

5) Once you have sent off the DQ to either Northampton or Salford, they will then send the case file to your designated local Court. A Judge will look at the papers, and unless he decides that the Claimant’s particulars are so flimsy that the case should be struck out, he will allocate a Hearing date, usually some weeks or months ahead. Both the PPC (The Claimant) and you (The Defendant) will get a letter advising the date. In order for the hearing to actually take place, the Claimant has to pay a Hearing Fee of £35 no later than 14 days before the listed date. If they fail to do this, the Claim is struck out by the Court, and the order sent to both parties. (Note: This is the most common scenario with properly defended claims).

6) Once you have a court date, get back in contact with the member who prepared a skeleton defence for you, and they will then supply the full defence statement and court bundle. We have a number of “standard” paragraphs which apply to almost all PPC defences, but we also need to personalise the statement with particulars about how the ticket was issued, what the PPC is claiming in their POC, whether the ticket was pre or post 1st October 2012, what was on the signage, etc.

7) In the (rare) event that the PPC proceeds all the way to a contested hearing (this only happened 34 times in 2012), you must attend court on the date and time specified. You can bring a friend or relative to speak on your behalf as a Litigation Friend. These hearings are informal affairs, conducted in a side room with the Judge and both parties sitting around a table – no wigs, gowns or jury. The Judge will (or should) have read the papers beforehand, and will invite both the Claimant and Defendant to summarise their case. It is therefore essential that you have read, and fully understood, your defence statement, and that you are prepared to make the arguments. After hearing all the arguments, the Judge will either find for the Claimant, in which case you have to pay within 21 days, or find in favour of the Defendant, which means you owe nothing. If this happens, have a statement of your costs ready to hand to the Judge (see CPR 27.14) and he may make an order for the Claimant to pay your costs. The eventual outcome can be a bit of a lottery, as different Judges in different courts seem to vary widely in their application of the relevant law. This is why preparation, preparation and more preparation are essential. "

SpaceCowboy55

Hi , Can anyone respond to my post #74 - re is Bargepoles advice on N180 response that I re-posted, please

zzzLazyDaisy

The info you have posted in #74 is an excellent step by step walk through of how to complete Form N180.

Re mediation: I would also send a letter to the court asking the court to make an order referring this dispute to the Parking on Private Land Appeals service (this being the suitable form of ADR set up by the parking industry for such disputes). Point out that had the claimant followed the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct, as it is obliged to do, the question of mediation should have been resolved before court action was started, and invite the court to Stay the action pending the outcome of the POPLA referral. Also (because POPLA is only binding on the PPC and not the motorist) it is worth giving an undertaking to the court that you agree to be bound by POPLA's decision. Confirm that you have sent a copy of the letter to the claimant, inviting it to agree to mediation by POPLA. Then send a copy to the claimant with a short covering letter enclosing a copy of your letter to the court and inviting them to consent to your request.

Re your question above about what a pre-hearing is (sorry I have only just spotted it). The normal hearing is the 'Full hearing of the facts' which is at the end of the case, where the court hears all the evidence on all the issues and decided who wins/loses. The hearing is always held at the court with a judge and the parties present (assuming they turn up). A 'preliminary hearing' or 'pre-hearing' is where there is an issue to be resolved before the full hearing can take place. This is much less common in SCC cases as the whole point is that the process should be quicker, simpler, and cheaper than a full county court action. However sometimes the pre-hearing is done by phone, or if the issue is simple enough the court may even dispose of the need for a hearing and simply invite the opposing party to provide its comments before it makes a decision.

But a preliminary hearing is only suitable for genuinely preliminary points (ie points which are NOT part of the main arguments of the case). So, for example, the argument that the claimant cannot make this claim against this defendant is a preliminary point which, if successful means the court does not have to hear any part of the claimant's case against the defendant (as there is no case to answer). GPEOL on the other hand is a fundamental issue of the case itself.

hth

Daisy

SpaceCowboy55

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

The info you have posted in #74 is an excellent step by step walk through of how to complete Form N180.

Re mediation: I would also send a letter to the court asking the court to make an order referring this dispute to the Parking on Private Land Appeals service (this being the suitable form of ADR set up by the parking industry for such disputes). Point out that had the claimant followed the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct, as it is obliged to do, the question of mediation should have been resolved before court action was started, and invite the court to Stay the action pending the outcome of the POPLA referral. Also (because POPLA is only binding on the PPC and not the motorist) it is worth giving an undertaking to the court that you agree to be bound by POPLA's decision. Confirm that you have sent a copy of the letter to the claimant, inviting it to agree to mediation by POPLA. Then send a copy to the claimant with a short covering letter enclosing a copy of your letter to the court and inviting them to consent to your request.

Re your question above about what a pre-hearing is (sorry I have only just spotted it). The normal hearing is the 'Full hearing of the facts' which is at the end of the case, where the court hears all the evidence on all the issues and decided who wins/loses. The hearing is always held at the court with a judge and the parties present (assuming they turn up). A 'preliminary hearing' or 'pre-hearing' is where there is an issue to be resolved before the full hearing can take place. This is much less common in SCC cases as the whole point is that the process should be quicker, simpler, and cheaper than a full county court action. However sometimes the pre-hearing is done by phone, or if the issue is simple enough the court may even dispose of the need for a hearing and simply invite the opposing party to provide its comments before it makes a decision.

But a preliminary hearing is only suitable for genuinely preliminary points (ie points which are NOT part of the main arguments of the case). So, for example, the argument that the claimant cannot make this claim against this defendant is a preliminary point which, if successful means the court does not have to hear any part of the claimant's case against the defendant (as there is no case to answer). GPEOL on the other hand is a fundamental issue of the case itself.

hth

Daisy

Thanks for your response.

I did have a POPLA code earlier in the process - it was a part of a confusing letter from SIP and overlapped with a second appeal that I sent SIP that I was sure would stop the action so I timed out on using it. On this basis I wonder whether this request would be rather weak. Also from what I have read POPLA does seem to be a bit of a lottery ( as well as court ) so I'm not sure I would want to be bound by it's decision, if that cannot be guaranteed to go my way . I would welcome comment from others who have experience of this.

Hovite_2

SpaceCowboy55 wrote: »

. Also from what I have read POPLA does seem to be a bit of a lottery ( as well as court ) so I'm not sure I would want to be bound by it's decision, if that cannot be guaranteed to go my way . I would welcome comment from others who have experience of this.

A) POPLA appeals that have had assistance from here or Pepipoo currently run at 100% over the last six months ( excluding those testing the system ).

You're not bound by the decision - only the PPC are.

bod1467

But Daisy had said to offer to be bound by the POPLA decision.

Coupon-mad

SpaceCowboy55 wrote: »

Thanks for your response.

I did have a POPLA code earlier in the process - it was a part of a confusing letter from SIP and overlapped with a second appeal that I sent SIP that I was sure would stop the action so I timed out on using it. On this basis I wonder whether this request would be rather weak. Also from what I have read POPLA does seem to be a bit of a lottery ( as well as court ) so I'm not sure I would want to be bound by it's decision, if that cannot be guaranteed to go my way . I would welcome comment from others who have experience of this.

POPLA is no lottery on here, using forum advice. You would have won; that code was your Golden Ticket.

But to request a new POPLA code now would be seen to be perfectly reasonable as POPLA is the bespoke ADR in this industry - why would you not suggest it seeing as it was mentioned, but not used earlier, due to overlapping post. You lose nowt by making this reasonable suggestion to the court, to spare precious court time, and SIP could look bad in rejecting it.

One small claim PE case has already been 'stayed' by the court with an order for the parties to undertake a POPLA appeal (PE weren't happy but our OP was as we win 100% of the time!). That's rare though, only one judge has allowed it so don't hold your breath. Even if it helps to make SIP look unreasonable that's another good reason to make the suggestion. We know that POPLA will consider a case as long as a PPC issues a new, in date POPLA code so don't let SIP get away with saying 'it's too late'. It is not.

zzzLazyDaisy

Just to be clear - you don't have to say that you agree to the POPLA decision being binding on you. If you are not comfortable with that, just leave that bit out. Having said that, it makes your offer to use POPLA ADR even more reasonable, which is in your favour as forum assisted POPLA appeals win everytime, whereas a court can be a lottery (which is why the PPCs prefer court to POPLA any day!)

Re the fact that you previously had a POPLA code which timed out - I agree with C-M. Make use of that fact! In your letter to the SIP remind them that they did previously give you a POPLA code which unfortunately timed out owing to the confusion created by the overlapping correspondence and invite them to provide you with a fresh replacement code so that this case can be referred to POPLA ADR..... and copy that letter to the court with your other letter (so the court and SIP each have copies of both letters).

Daisy