County Court letter from a UKPC fine

System

How did you know the University I attend?

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner, Brunel University. UKPC cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from Brunel University to UKPC.

Uni should train you to a) research b) find the key facts and c) link them.

Court claims are excellent training for this.

Hope you are not doing law.

Anthony94

Hi guys I'm just about to send off my first defence.
Do I send it to the Small Claims Solicitors address on the court form or the Court address which is:
Money Claims Online
Country Court Bulk Centre
St Katharines House
21-27 ST Katharines Street
NN1 2LH

Redx

already answered in the BARGEPOLE guide you havent read

your attention to detail is **** , lol

TDA

Anthony94 wrote: »

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner, Brunel University. UKPC cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from Brunel University to UKPC.

What lease are you talking about?

Anthony94

I have received two letters today, one regarding the PART 18 request and the other about filling in a questionnaire to the courts

The letter regarding the PART 18 was received from SCS LAW. They basically told me in the letter the PART 18 does not apply to small claims hearings subject to the court making an order of its own initiative. They also say their client is under no obligation to respond to my part 18 request but will answer a few in which they have said. UKPC are the principal in making the claim, the sum claimed is a contractural sum which becoming owing upon breach and they sent me a copy of the signage installed at the site.

Then they say that they are under no obligation to verify this response with a statement of truth.

As before I'm going to need guidance again. Is this all true? Are they in the right to do this now and what do i from here??

ManxRed

Has the claim been allocated to the small claims track yet?

Stating that their client is the Principal here will require some documentation from them to support that. They most certainly aren't the landholder so they need to produce a contract unredacted enough to prove beyond doubt that they have landholder rights granted from the existing occupier.

I'm willing to bet they have no such contract.

Coupon-mad

Basically, they would say that, wouldn't they? Not sharing information and answering reasonable questions from a registered keeper defendant who may not even have seen the car parks in question, just makes them appear unreasonable, IMHO.

As for the Directions Questionnaire, you'll know how to fill that out because you've read bargepole's thread linked in the NEWBIES thread.

Anthony94

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Basically, they would say that, wouldn't they? Not sharing information and answering reasonable questions from a registered keeper defendant who may not even have seen the car parks in question, just makes them appear unreasonable, IMHO.

As for the Directions Questionnaire, you'll know how to fill that out because you've read bargepole's thread linked in the NEWBIES thread.

Ah I see...proper scumbags they are.

Yep i know how to do the questionnaire thanks to bargepole!

ManxRed wrote: »

Has the claim been allocated to the small claims track yet?

Stating that their client is the Principal here will require some documentation from them to support that. They most certainly aren't the landholder so they need to produce a contract unredacted enough to prove beyond doubt that they have landholder rights granted from the existing occupier.

I'm willing to bet they have no such contract.

So in my next step do I question them about this?

The_Slithy_Tove

Anthony94 wrote: »

So in my next step do I question them about this?

You remind them that they are obliged to attempt to settle the matter without going to court. Not answering questions which validate their claim is unreasonable behaviour, which you will be bringing to the attention of the court, to allow them to draw their own conclusions. Additionally, such unreasonable behaviour will allow you to claim against them for your wasted time and resources.

Coupon-mad

You could certainly exchange emails with the claimant's solicitor as well as filling in the DQ. But I wouldn't be wasting stamps on it sending letters at this stage because you'll get your proper chance to state your case in your skeleton argument which gets submitted to the claimant and the court later on, with your witness statement.

And you can see the whites of their eyes in court if they proceed to a hearing in the end (they might drop out, they are really after weaker victims or default judgments against people who ignore the court papers).