Defending Ticket - Minster Bay Watch & Gladstone

System

Could you just tell us what was on the claim - as that is what you are defending. Or give us an idea as to why they are claiming against you.

Is it non-payment? Is it overstaying? Is it outside the lines?

The particulars make a difference to the defence.

brexit33

The particulars of the claim are exactly (Blanking exact details with XX):

--DATE -- DESCRIPTION - AMOUNT - DUE DATE
XX/XX/XX - REGXX/PCNXXX - £150 - XX/XX/XX
XX/XX/XX - REGXX/PCNXXX - £150 - XX/XX/XX
Total Due - £300
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

The Claimant claims the sum of £303.40 for Parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable including £3.40 interest pursuant to S.69 of the Count Courts Act 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to 09/11/16 Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to Judgment £0.07
Total debt and interest £303.40

brexit33

Since I don't have much information should i send them a Subject Access Request? Should it be addressed to gladstone or minster bay watch?

brexit33

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Well why not search this forum and pepipoo for other similar dated MB threads where people may have shown the NTK wording. Find one from a similar month and you will see what yours likely had in its wording.

Searching other threads I've been informed it was in the same format as this one:

http:// oi63.tinypic.com/6jj7tg.jpg

http:// forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108598

From a cursory glance it seems to comply with POFA, schedule 4 pretty well.

System

Or give us an idea as to why they are claiming against you.

Any idea x 2 since whatever happened happened twice.

brexit33

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Any idea x 2 since whatever happened happened twice.

non-payment I would assume.

Coupon-mad

The point is you should not have to assume.

Did you move house since the event or around that time, or was your V5 showing the wrong address at the time?

Oh, and luckily for you, as this is a Gladstones case you will no doubt soon get that standard letter about their misleading offer/request to 'hear it on the papers' (as shown in fellsider's thread) which will give you a chance to attach a formal letter to your Directions Questionnaire, when you get your copy from the court.

You can certainly object to these woeful particulars of claim (PoC) so seize every straw.

You can even say (when you get your DQ - see bargepole's thread to understand what's what) it is the lack of PoC and lack of any previous letters being seen at all - you do not have to say why - that caused you to be taken by surprise. Not being armed with any reasonable information whatsoever, you should state in your covering letter that if the case is not struck out for lack of particulars then you hope G's will be ordered to issue 'further & better PoC' and that you will then be afforded a fair opportunity to defend in a more informed way :

--DATE -- DESCRIPTION - AMOUNT - DUE DATE
XX/XX/XX - REGXX/PCNXXX - £150 - XX/XX/XX
XX/XX/XX - REGXX/PCNXXX - £150 - XX/XX/XX
Total Due - £300
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

The Claimant claims the sum of £303.40 for Parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable including £3.40 interest pursuant to S.69 of the Count Courts Act 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to 09/11/16 Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to Judgment £0.07
Total debt and interest £303.40

Here is some wording supplied by IamEmanresu in another case which you can work into a covering letter with your DQ - after all Gladstones send their letter so you can better it:

The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest.

Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
(3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant
3. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
(1) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
(2) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.
__________________________________________________ _________________________

brexit33

Thanks for the advice everyone.

As expected I received an email from gladstones today with their N180 form and request to hear it on papers only. So I should just wait to receive my N180 from the court and then attach a covering letter to object to the PoC?

Dear XXXXX

Minster Baywatch Ltd
-v-
XXXX

We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.

Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.

Yours sincerely

Holly
Administration Assistant

Coupon-mad

Yes indeed, wait for your own DQ then you can see off that standard rubbish by Gladstones, this is about playing the game and it's always the same!

Example covering letter to go with your DQ is on Gin and Milk's thread and you can amalgamate it with IamEmanresu's wording and hope to get an early strike out.