County Court Claim Form Received

Swanseaparker

A few points on what I changed from your draft and some further questions please:

I removed reference to VCS as my vague memory recalls blue and yellow signs at the time, not the newer red ones which are seen in the area now.
Removed reference to the £100 charge on the signs, I honestly couldn’t tell you if there was an amount there as being a permit holder, this sign didn’t apply to me. Should I put these back in as the PCN was for £100, suggesting the signs would confirm the same?
Para 11 “The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of the signage.”, do I still require this as I’ve removed the VCS reference here?
Para 15 “The Defendant recalls the permit was still visible from outside of the vehicle”, I can’t remember where the permit fell, if it was on the dashboard, seat, footwell, should I leave this line out? As they haven’t provided proof/photographs it’s difficult to know what they can provide showing a lack of permit and being over 5 years ago I can’t remember. If so, I’m assuming I also need to remove the bit in parenthesis in para 20.7
Do I need a section in there referring to BW Legal’s blatant attempt to frustrate the claim, by responding to my request for documentation/evidence supporting the claim, saying the “request for documents should not have an affect on you filing your defence”? In line with the lack of POC which Redx stated?

I notice in the defence post below, reason (8) under reasons why I’m denying raises mentions an inconsistency between BW’s letter and the Claim Form. Mine is the same (BW’s letter states Solicitors’ Costs of £104, but this appears to have been split in the claim form to £50 “Legal representative’s costs” and £54 “contractual costs” (which were bundled in with the “Amount claimed”). Worth me raising?

forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=44662

Reason (9) in there seems to cover my last bullet point above, will this suffice for altering later if BW/Excel throw anything else up?

Finally, right at the bottom of that thread it says to state I am defending myself in this case and to ask for leeway, is this necessary? I'm not sure on the wording I'd use as I don't want to sound like I'm asking for preferential treatment.

I appreciate there are a lot of questions, again I’m very grateful for your help so far, this defence document is great as I’d already started preparing a “pre-POFA” argument, but agree the contract situation is a better route to take, particularly as my memory is very hazy of that particular day.

Swanseaparker

Finally, to settle my panicking mindset, claim was issued 7th June, I acknowledged on 20th June, I have until 10th July to provide my defence, correct? I will likely post the middle of next week as the 10th July is a Monday and don't want to miss this!

Loadsofchildren123

I think the point at (8) in that other defence is better in the witness statement. However, no harm putting it in the defence. Put in a new 21 to replace the current one, and I'd use this wording - you'll need to check though what the amounts claimed in your actual LBC were, they may be different from that other case (my wording below assumes they are the same):


"The Defendant also challenges the addition of £54 in “contractual costs”. The Claimant is put to full proof of the contractual term entitling it to add charges of £54 to the sum claimed. In its Letter Before Claim the Claimant did not in fact seek any such "contractual costs" - it sought the principal debt (£100), court fee (£25) and solicitors costs (£104). Now in the Claim it has reduced the solicitors costs to £50 and is claiming the difference (£54) as "contractual costs". The Claimant is put to full proof as to why this sum was originally claimed as "solicitors costs"."


Then a new para 22 about interest:


"The Defendant also challenges the interest claimed of [£39.34] on the basis that the court should not exercise its discretion to award such interest where the Claimant has delayed by more than 5 years in bringing these proceedings."


Then a new para dealing with the issue raised in para (9) of that other Defence:


23. "The Defendant asks the court to note that the Claimant has refused to comply with its obligations under the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c), in that it refused to answer the Defendant's reasonable request made on [date] for further information and core documents by which the Claimant intended to evidence its Claim so that he could properly understand the Claim against him, respond to it and engage in a dialogue with the Claimant about it (the Claimant's response stated that the "request for documents should not have an affect on [the Defendant] filing [his] defence”). The exchange of correspondence is attached to this Defence. The Defendant is left having to defend a Claim which has been poorly and sparsely pleaded, in breach of CPR Rule 16.4, in respect of which no contract has been produced (in breach of Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3), all of which means that he does not fully understand the claim that is being brought against him.


24. In light of the matters at paragraph 23 above, the Defendant asks the court:


24.1 of its own initiative, to exercise its inherent powers to summarily dispose of issues which do not need full investigation and trial, pursuant to CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1, namely to strike out the claim under CPR Rule 3.4 or, in the alternative, to summarily adjudge it pursuant to CPR Rule 24;


24.2 in the alternative, to exercise its powers pursuant to CPR Rule 3.1(f) and pursuant to the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct paragraph 15(b) to stay these proceedings and to order the Claimant to comply with paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b) within 28 days by providing full particulars of its claim and core documents which evidence it (including but not limited to any contract between the Claimant and Admiral for it to manage the parking at the time of the parking event(s), any and all document(s) containing the terms of its alleged contract with the Defendant, evidence of the signage displayed in the car park on the relevant date(s), all photographs taken of the Defendant's car on the relevant dates) (and with provision for the Defendant to then amend his Defence), failing which the claim should be struck out;


24.3 in the alternative, to exercise its powers pursuant to CPR 3.1(4) to (6) and paragraph 10 of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct when giving case management directions, by ordering the Claimant to file and serve a full Reply to this Defence within 28 days and to provide copies of the documents which it should have produced prior to issuing this claim (set out in 24.2 above) (and with provision for the Defendant to then amend his Defence), failing which the claim should be struck out.


Should the court decline to make any of the above orders, then the Defendant must reserve his position in amending this Defence to deal with further matters/particulars which the Claimant may include in its evidence in support of the Claim.


25. In the meantime, without full and proper particulars of the Claim and without any further explanation or documents, the Defendant makes it clear that he puts the Claimant to full proof of every aspect of its claim.

Loadsofchildren123

Swanseaparker wrote: »

I removed reference to VCS as my vague memory recalls blue and yellow signs at the time, not the newer red ones which are seen in the area now. OK, new para 25 puts them to full proof of everything - the other person I helped said their friend thought that the signs may have been blue and yellow but she couldn't really say so I had tried to cover both bases
Removed reference to the £100 charge on the signs, I honestly couldn’t tell you if there was an amount there as being a permit holder, this sign didn’t apply to me. Should I put these back in as the PCN was for £100, suggesting the signs would confirm the same?it reads fine as it is - you are putting them to full proof anyway
Para 11 “The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of the signage.”, do I still require this as I’ve removed the VCS reference here? yes, you always do this. Often the PPC makes no effort to show what signs were in place on the actual day, and the judge says they haven't proved their case (eg they should produce photos showing both the car and at least one of the signs)
Para 15 “The Defendant recalls the permit was still visible from outside of the vehicle”, I can’t remember where the permit fell, if it was on the dashboard, seat, footwell, should I leave this line out? I think take out that sentence. As they haven’t provided proof/photographs it’s difficult to know what they can provide showing a lack of permit and being over 5 years ago I can’t remember. If so, I’m assuming I also need to remove the bit in parenthesis in para 20.7 no, leave this in until you've seen the photos - very often operatives take photos that deliberately hide the fact that the permit could be seen, but if you look at them carefully sometimes you can see the corner of the permit and so can then say that it could have been seen from someone standing close to the vehicle and the photos are deliberately misleading
Do I need a section in there referring to BW Legal’s blatant attempt to frustrate the claim, by responding to my request for documentation/evidence supporting the claim, saying the “request for documents should not have an affect on you filing your defence”? In line with the lack of POC which Redx stated? Absolutely - didn't realise they'd written this letter to you. It could (should) be dynamite. You'll see I've added a whole section. Can you attach the letters to the defence? When the matter gets sent to your local court and a judge looks at it to assign it to the small track and make directions, (s)he will hopefully make one of these orders. It depends whether or not (s)he actually reads your defence. I think on your DQ (when you get to that stage) where it says is there any order you'd like the court to make, lift this section and repeat it there. Some cases do get struck out at this stage, or at least the C is ordered to properly particularise the claim (split infinitive there, I know!).

Finally, right at the bottom of that thread it says to state I am defending myself in this case and to ask for leeway, is this necessary? I'm not sure on the wording I'd use as I don't want to sound like I'm asking for preferential treatment. I wouldn't bother, this won't make the judge give you any extra leeway. You get it anyway as a LiP. I don't think it adds anything. Put it in if you want, many people do.

See my comments in red in the text of your original post

Loadsofchildren123

Sorry, another point for your DQ (if it gets this far):


in the part where it says do you want any particular directions, you put the directions/orders in para 24 above, PLUS in the part where it says "should the court decline to make these orders..." and you reserve your position re adding further defence points, I'd add a specific request that the court orders SEQUENTIAL service (rather than exchange) of witness statements because, as things stand, you have no real idea of how the claimant will make out its case and this will at least allow you to respond to their case properly, rather than shooting in the dark. I know we are a little way off that, and hopefully Admiral will buy you/themselves out of this, but just saying it while I remember.

Coupon-mad

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Sorry, another point for your DQ (if it gets this far):


in the part where it says do you want any particular directions, you put the directions/orders in para 24 above, PLUS in the part where it says "should the court decline to make these orders..." and you reserve your position re adding further defence points, I'd add a specific request that the court orders SEQUENTIAL service (rather than exchange) of witness statements because, as things stand, you have no real idea of how the claimant will make out its case and this will at least allow you to respond to their case properly, rather than shooting in the dark. I know we are a little way off that, and hopefully Admiral will buy you/themselves out of this, but just saying it while I remember.

That's a good one LOC123, not seen that suggested before. Makes sense.

Loadsofchildren123

Yes I've been meaning to raise that for ages. It makes sense to me that where you have no idea how they make out their case, and knowing that they will only do so in their WS, they should be sequential.


Can you get this put into the procedural threads CM?

Coupon-mad

Yes I will add it to the sticky, over the weekend. Any tips or changes for the NEWBIES thread gratefully received, or case law, anything useful you think should be in the standard info.

Shout to remind me if I forget, I do block pm's here and on pepipoo, to avoid harassment, but you can email me, as we are in touch in another place.

Loadsofchildren123

I wonder also whether in that particular section of the DQ people ought to be asking as standard for an order - I know that these points are always put in a defence, but perhaps putting them as a specific requested direction in the DQ makes it more likely the judge will consider this point:


either:
1. an order that the claim be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4 due to the incoherent Particulars which make out no case (which the court has the power to do under its inherent case management powers contained in CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1),
or
2. an order that the C be ordered to file and serve within 28 days proper particulars of the claim (in accordance with CPR Rule 16.4), and the core documents making out the claim (in accordance with the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct paragraphs 6(a) and (c) (and list these - eg landowner contract, any contract it claims exists between it and D, copies of all photographs in its possession showing the vehicle it is alleged was parked), and until then the claim be stayed pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Pre-Action Practice Direction; thereafter if the C has not filed and served such particulars and documents then the claim be automatically struck out, or if the C has filed and served such particulars and documents, then the D be given leave to file an amended defence 28 days thereafter.


If the court is not minded to make either order, then an order that the C produce those documents within x days pursuant to Rule 27.2(3) and that the D be given leave to file an amended Defence x days thereafter.


The option at 1 puts everything at its highest and asks the court to throw the case out. Most DJs won't be brave enough to do that, so 2. is a half way house. 3. is only where the judge won't do either, but at least it makes the PPC do a bit of work up front, instead of sitting back and making the D flail around trying to defend a case from every angle.


[EMAIL="won@I"]I[/EMAIL] think it's better to present the judge with alternative options - they are more likely to make an order if it's suggested to them, along with their powers to do so.


I know some forum regulars prefer not to force the PPC to set out its case properly, but I think that's dangerous and I think it's far better (particularly where they have no/a weak case) to try to force their hand.

Loadsofchildren123

Apologies, I'm aware that I'm hijacking this thread a bit, I'll email C-M with any more suggestions rather than making them on here.