Mistakenly ticked the box to contest jurisdiction, what next?

elgordo9

Hi All,

On 27th March BW Legal came after me again with two other claims (from same parking company), for which I obviously deny that I owe them both. In submitting my AoS I have stupidly ticked the contest jurisdiction box on both claims. What shall I do now?

I intend to submit my defence between 10th and 14th April, unfortunatley I'm extremely busy until then and don't have a great deal of time or energy to focus on submitting the defence. On a seperate note, shouldn't they have submitted both claims in one?

Thanks all!

KeithP

Forget the jurisdiction thing.
As soon as you file your Defence it will be effectively cancelled.
You also have to pay a fee to contest jurisdiction, and if that isn't paid in time, again it is cancelled.


What are the Issue Dates on your Claim Forms?

At this stage you will have to contest each claim separately, but mention in each Defence about the other Claim.

Later on they will be consolidated.

elgordo9

Thanks KiethP, the issue date on both claim forms is 27th March.

KeithP

elgordo9 wrote: »

The issue date on both claim forms is 27th March.

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th March, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 29th April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


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

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. 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'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Coupon-mad

Two claims? I hope you've been reading other threads on how to deal with that?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75646653#Comment_75646653

elgordo9

Hi All,

Here is a draft of my defence. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

IN THE COUNTY COURT Claim No: XXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
Norwich Traffic Control Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when allegedly parking at XXXXXX on XX/XX/XXX.

3. The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued two claims against the defendant on the same date, numbers XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX, both with substantially identical particulars. It is submitted that this constitutes an abuse of process, making the Defendant potentially liable for two instances of issue fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees (as well as the unrecoverable £60 x 2 attempt at double recovery that is a feature of BW Legal claims). This runs contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and I trust that the Judge will apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

4. The Particulars of Claim do not state if the Defendant is pursued as the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4.1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The registered keeper does not admit to being a driver of the vehicle in question on the date in question. The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

5. Due to the sparseness of the Particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

8.1. These have been variously described as ‘NTC’s initial legal costs’ and/or a ‘contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions'. There is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £XXX.XX. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

8.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

8.2.1. 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.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

The_Deep

As an added irritation, complain to your MP, they are trying to deal a death blow to the industry and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Coupon-mad

2. The facts are that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract. [STRIKE]when allegedly parking at XXXXXX on XX/XX/XXX[/STRIKE].

Remove the specific date and time, so you can use the same defence for both claims (albeit you will have to email it to the CCBC twice, with a different claim number in each subject line.

Also repeat the 'two claims' wording as a paragraph in the main body of the email saying:

Here is my defence.

As well as lodging this on MCOL for me, please put claim numbers xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx before a Judge at the earliest opportunity - before allocation - to consolidate the claims into one, to avoid an abuse of process and a waste of time & money for the court and all parties.

elgordo9

UPDATE:

I have received DQs for both claims, and therefore it would appear as though the two claims have not been consolidated despite my initial request attached with my defence. Is there a formal process to follow in order to ask for the claims to be consolidated or should I simply call the court?

Also, I have had to attach a separate sheet detailing the dates that I am unavailable. The ambulance service is paying for me to progress from EMT to Paramedic, therefore there are a lot of dates where I am scheduled to study or work as part of the progression programme. Will the court tolerate such a large number of dates that I am unavailable for? The tiny answer box provided suggests not.

Many thanks!

Coupon-mad

I have received DQs for both claims, and therefore it would appear as though the two claims have not been consolidated despite my initial request attached with my defence. Is there a formal process to follow in order to ask for the claims to be consolidated or should I simply call the court?

Neither. No phone calls.

You must just keep repeating it at every stage - so put a covering email with your DQ for each claim. Do ONE email with both DQs (plus your non-availability list of dates) it might force the CCBC to put it before a Judge.

If not, then you repeat the same request to your LOCAL court once allocated, and they are more likely IMHO to put it before a Judge and only allocate one hearing for both, in the end.

Also, I have had to attach a separate sheet detailing the dates that I am unavailable. The ambulance service is paying for me to progress from EMT to Paramedic, therefore there are a lot of dates where I am scheduled to study or work as part of the progression programme. Will the court tolerate such a large number of dates that I am unavailable for? The tiny answer box provided suggests not.

They should do.

Reiterate that to your local Court as soon as it is allocated there. send them the list too, when asking again for consolidation, and explain your reasons for low availability but your determination to attend one oral hearing to see justice served.