County court letter assistance

Umkomaas

Castle wrote: »

I thought the final paragraph, (no 35), of the POC was original:-

Where the claimant asks the court to come up with an alternative remedy if the defendant wasn't the driver.

Beggars belief. Let's try and get him any way we can!

Desperate or what?

Logblahar

I will make changes to 1st link and then post again. Thanks

Logblahar

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rpz5oh0xl4tympc/scanjob_20180404132420.pdf?dl=0

Logblahar

This is all that was contained in their Particulars of claim.
Do I need to change or add anything to another defence? Or will my original defence suffice?.

nosferatu1001

Yes of course you need to amend your defence. You have to AMEND it, not star5 again.

Rebut their woeful particulars

1) at 5 they have asserted you were the driver, have you denied this? If so just add in that they have no evidence of this, just a wild guess.
2) at 6 they excuse 4, probably meaning 5 actually, where you point out that there is no duty on you to disclose the drivers identity - it it their claim to make, not yours - and at 6.2 this may only be true in an employee employer relationship. A private individual lending a vehicle to another private person can!!!8217;t be said to be bound by contracts they!!!8217;ve made. That!!!8217;s a nonsense. You presume the claimant will attempt to adduce the case of cps vs ajh films as being relevant here, however this relied upon an egency relationship which does not exist here. The claimant is clearly floundering, hoping the court will throw them a lifeline.

3) 8.1 , 8.2, 8.4 makes an assumption that the D was the driver, as only the driver can enter the contract. This is denied (if you can, do this every time) and the C is put to strict proof of their claim, requiring them to prove the id entity of the driver.

4) 9 dame as above

5) put them to strict proof of all data. On balance of probability a machine failure is more likely, so you require them to produce full unpredicted logs for every machine.

6) 15 sameissue as 8, and so on. Summarise every error they make on assuming the identity of the driver to be the D

7) 35) is laughable. They!!!8217;re asking the court to decide that even if there is no contract they should still be entitled to re,edgy? Remedy for what, precisely!?

Castle

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

6) 15 sameissue as 8, and so on. Summarise every error they make on assuming the identity of the driver to be the D

In para 19 the defendant changes sex... from he to her!!

Logblahar

Thank you for your great points. I will do as you suggest and post an amended defence soon.

Lamilad

The bulk of your amended defence will be essentially the same as the original but you should include a preliminary paragraph at the beginning dealing with the new PoC.

You should certainly mention the fact that they have been ordered to submit further and better particulars and, as a serial litigant represented by a professional firm of solicitors, this clearly highlights their unreasonable conduct of this litigation for which costs will be sought pursuant to CPR 27.

You should also point to the fact that they have failed to comply with order in that they have not established any legal basis on which the defendant may be liable for any charge; specifically that they are not relying on PoFA in order to invoke keeper liability and have not provided any evidence of who was driving. Pursuant to the order of judge wright, and due to their failure to comply the case should stand struck out. With costs awarded due to their unreasonable behaviour

Coupon-mad

If this is Skipton court and Excel are trying the old 'it's non POFA but waaah, let us have the money from this registered keeper anyway' rubbish, you should seize on the chance to file for costs on the indemnity basis (due to their unreasonable behaviour) and see if Judge Wright will make an example of them in your favour.

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002886754-Successful-Costs-Application

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/sections/115001290549-Costs-for-unreasonable-behavior-under-CPR-27-14-2-g-

Whack up the costs and get that costs schedule in, with your amended defence, adding that the costs will be higher for attending a hearing, given the Claimant has no case and you will have to miss work and have travel expenses, to attend.

System

Para #35 is a catchall reference to a POFA alternative. The answer is a simple one of referring to para #2 and pointing out there is/was a remedy but they chose not to use it.

Clearly this is premised, as was pointed out before, that the driver had a contract in the first place.

Edit: You could that in the case of Bagri v BW Legal, the Claimant's solicitors boast of handling 1mn claims with only 6 supervising solicitors. The Defendant asks the court that they provide a remedy to Defendants to being exposed to shoddy vexatious claims and the abuse/misuse of the court process.