Received N1SDT claim form

KeithP

Again, please can I ask:

KeithP wrote: »

What is the Date of Issue printed on your Claim Form?

Why not post your Defence here for critique first?

Sara_W

Date on claim form 2nd July did the AOS on 5th July

KeithP

With a Claim Form Issue Date of 2nd July, and the AoS completed in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 6th August 2018 to file your Defence.

So you have more that a week to refine it.
Why not post your Defence here so that others can help with 'fine tuning'?

When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk, (the ccbcaq email address you mention is also good)
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

Sara_W

I have hopefully taken out all info that will identify me. Am I correct in that I can email to [EMAIL="ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk"]ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL] and I do not have to do anything on the MOCL after the AOS on 5th july? Would any one be kind enough to critique this for me please?

I am !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;. the defendant in this matter and was at the time of this allegation registered keeper of vehicle !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

1. The Claim Form issued on the !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;. by !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;.. was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by Civil Enforcement Limited; as the Claimant;s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) and as an example as to why this prevents a full defense being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defense. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to myself as the defendant.

a. There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction.

b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of draft particulars. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

c. The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information.

d. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about; why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the Letter before County Court Claim should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to take stock, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

i. Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute

ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure

iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and

iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

e. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 POFA 2012. Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the parking event and when the notice was served, did not fully comply with statutory wording. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions:

The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity, at any point, to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice entitled Parking Charge Notice which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.
The first notification received by the defendant was received on !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;.when the alleged incident was dated on the claimants letter !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;... Despite first notification letter and also informed this as Letter before Action requesting £!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;.

Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert, stated that in law that Schedule 4 states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;.. for outstanding debt and damages. The additional costs, which the defendant contests have not been incurred, are none of its concern.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representatives costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230; If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage contract, none of this applies in this material case.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs

b. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant

c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver; this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum
ii. It is believed the signage was not visible due to the heavy rain and poor lighting and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as compensation from by an authorised party using the premises as intended
iii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant

d. BPA CoP breache this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning
ii. The sum pursued exceeds £100
iii. There is/was no compliant landowner contract

8. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

9. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

10. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant sent a letter claiming to be a final letter before court action, but then instead sent this to more debt collectors. As such the Claimants have artificially inflated the claim value by claiming to involve further debt collectors, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
11 The defendant in order to reply to the Claim Form requested personal data evidence on !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;. from the Claimant and then again under GDPR on !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;No response from the claimant. A subsequent request has been made !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230; to the claimant before referring to ICO.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I confirm that the contents of this Defense are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed / dated

KeithP

Am I correct in that I can email to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk and I do not have to do anything on the MOCL after the AOS on 5th july?

Yes, that's correct. Excepting point 6) in my previous post.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove a, b, and c under #2, which is based on what CEL used to do in 2017 and it is not relevant in 2018.

Then remove this ending from 10 onwards,

10. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant sent a letter claiming to be a final letter before court action, but then instead sent this to more debt collectors. As such the Claimants have artificially inflated the claim value by claiming to involve further debt collectors, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on xxx

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
11 The defendant in order to reply to the Claim Form requested personal data evidence on xxxx from the Claimant and then again under GDPR on xxxx no response from the claimant. A subsequent request has been made to the claimant before referring to ICO.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

and instead, add the ending here:

10) The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form, which disclosed no Particulars of Claim that can give rise to a cause of action, or any claim in law at all, against this registered keeper Defendant.

11) If Directions are given rather than the court acting of its own volition to strike the case out due to a lack of properly pleaded Particulars, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is widely know that, where a claim is robustly defended, this particular Claimant routinely discontinues at Witness Statement stage and never pays the court hearing fee.

12) It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Courts, and for a Defendant to spend hours on their own Witness Statement against a vexatious litigant who invariably discontinue and are clearly in pursuit of default judgments and abusing the court process as an aggressive form of debt collection with no intention of paying for or attending a hearing.

13) Given that in 2017 and 2018 it has been observed in the public domain - and hopefully by the Courts, who cannot have missed the fact - anyone who defends robustly against this Claimant receives a notice of discontinuance, the Court is asked to act at an early stage, using its case management powers to prevent this abuse.

14) The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to striking out the claim on the Court's own initiative, as having no merit, no particulars of claim, no reasonable prospects of success, and given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100. The amount claimed on the claim is £xxx.xx and the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

Just add instead of the red bit, the total sum from the right bottom of the claim form the £300 -odd they are blagging...

Sara_W

thank you so much I feel so much better knowing I am getting there, with your help it really is appreciated

Sara_W

just wondered if you could tell me if I need to do anything now? I submitted my court response by email on 27th July and I have had acknowledgement letter form court to say received it and now up to claimant to instruct if still going ahead? I haven't heard anything else is this normal? ive been on MCOL and it has not been updated but I did receive a written letter confirming they have my response?

nosferatu1001

By "court response", I presume you mean your defence?
Terms are important. You will respond to the court a LOT

Youre now waiting to see if they continue. They will. Have you properly read post 2 of the newbies thread? Bookmarked it? Read it BEFORE asking questions?

Coupon-mad

I would email CCBC and ask why MCOL has not been updated, bearing in mind you have a letter confirming receipt of your defence.