Going to court for parking in my own spot

MrDramatique

Evening all I have a seemingly unique update from the court that I cannot find any similar reference of using the forum search.

I've received a "General Form of Judgement or Order" and the courts are seemingly unhappy with DE's claim?

It reads:

Date: 28 August 2019

WARNING: you must comply with the terms imposed upon you by this Order: otherwise your case is liable to be struck out or some other sanction imposed. If you cannot comply you are expected to make a formal application to the Court before any deadline imposed upon you expires.

Upon considering the court file
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1) The Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and are struck out.
2) The Claimant must by 4pm on the 6th Sep file and serve fresh Particulars of Claim, identifying:
a) Whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
If so,
b) By reference to the definition of "relevant obligation" in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, whether it is alleged that the claim is based on a relevant obligation:
i) " arising under the terms of a relevant contract" or
ii) "arising, in any circumstances where there is no relevant contract, as a result of a trespass or other tort committed
by parking the vehicle on the relevant land"
c) If a contract is alleged, what was the consideration provided by the Claimant and what was the breach of contract.
d) If no contract is alleged, what was the "trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land" .
If the claim is not brought under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,
e) The cause of action and how it arose.
f) If the cause of action is breach of contract, the parties to the contract, the consideration provided by the Claimant and the alleged breach of contract.
3) If the Claimant fails to comply with the above direction, the claim shall be struck out automatically and without further order.
4) If the Claimant complies with this Order the Defendant shall by 4pm on the 20th September 2019 send to the court and the Claimant's solicitors a Defence in substitution for the existing Defence.
5) At the expiry of the time limit at paragraph 4 above the file will be referred back to District Judge ######### for further case management.
6) Because this Order has been made without a hearing, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A: party making such an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this Order.

Dated 21 August 2019

The inconsistency in the top and bottom date are a tad confusing however it seems as though the court wants to allow DE resubmit their claim? Can I object to this and have the case dismissed? The court has literally said the claim is struck out so why are they allowing them to have another go?

I feel as though the judge doesn't like these companies but I'm in desperate need of all of your advice and opinions at this stage!

Thanks in advance guys.

JesterShoe

I think you are on to a winner, the word has got round the judges, the claimant needs to prove that "consideration" (mentioned twice) took place which is a key part to any contract. They have to offer you something of value,and by parking in your own bay they cannot offer you anything you do not already have.

I have just won my case on this point.

MrDramatique

:beer: Well congratulations on winning your case!

I'm still a little miffed personally, I feel as though the judge has pulled up fundamental issues with the claim but has allowed DE time to rectify it.

Could DE simply apply to have this order set aside and continue to a hearing regardless?

[Deleted User]

Bottom date on a court order is always the day that the judge made it.

The date in the to right is the day that the court clerks drew it up and posted it/added it to the system.

I am delighted to read this order, because in my view most of the particulars in these cases are deficient on exactly this basis, which only causes further problems (most PPCs then end up doing a witness statement with no facts but chock full of the points that should've been in the particulars).

Courts rarely strike out a case absolutely (right to fair trial etc). Here the court is merely saying the PPC may have a valid case but fails to adequately explain it. That can't stand. So I've cancelled the allegations, lodge new ones and if you don't you're outta there!

Ok, so the PPC is in trouble or at least under time pressure. As of today there is basically a week for them to get their act together and file & serve particulars of claim. (i.e. this must be sent to the court and to you. Sending it to the court alone isn't good enough). If they're posting it, that means they'll actually need to send it by 04/09/19 to ensure it reaches you per the deemed service provisions. Do NOT accept service by email.

If it's late, demand a certificate of service from C and if one is not supplied notify the court that it was served late.

Since the claimant lawyers like to deal with everything on template formats this will be a PITA to deal with for them.

What this does also mean is that the DJ is likely to be amenable to arguments that turn on detail and legal rules and principles. That's a good thing in my view as one of the challenges can be when facing the pragmatic view - this sort of nonsense: "there was a sign you must've known they'd want payment therefore the charge stands"

[Deleted User]

I'm still a little miffed personally, I feel as though the judge has pulled up fundamental issues with the claim but has allowed DE time to rectify it.

That is the usual approach. There is a raft of case precedent to support it, notably to include court of appeal authority from Lord Woolf author of the court rules. So don't be miffed.

We are now routinely asking for strike outs on this forum. I support the reasons why, but I am not sure it is clearly articulated how rarely the power is exercised.

Could DE simply apply to have this order set aside and continue to a hearing regardless?

Yes, but they won't. First because that'll cost them £255 if a hearing is needed and second, because on a strict interpretation of the rules, the Particulars are indeed deficient (I've taken this point against a PPC before).

MrDramatique

Johnersh, thank you very much for the clarification. It suppose it must be quite wonderful for you to see judges with this reasoning.

All this time and effort people such as yourselves put in to help others is obviously changing the balance of the scales.

Anyway, as you say, if this puts up barriers for DE then I'm all for it.

[Deleted User]

it must be quite wonderful for you to see judges with this reasoning.

Having failed in a strike out on exactly this point, actually it is.

All this time and effort people such as yourselves put in to help others is obviously changing the balance of the scales.

Despite my loss in my interim skirmish, my defence was successful and I hope that others will be too. Pleased that the legal argument withstands scrutiny as per your case.

I do very little. CouponMad is a worthy crusader.

My greatest beef is the bolt on charges and fairly threatening correspondence. That's what keeps me here.

The_Deep

My greatest beef is the bolt on charges and fairly threatening correspondence.

Mine is the hassle these scammers give residents ticketed in their own spaces.

IMO, many who come here deserve to be ticketed for their stupidity.

MrDramatique

Johnersh wrote: »

Ok, so the PPC is in trouble or at least under time pressure. As of today there is basically a week for them to get their act together and file & serve particulars of claim. (i.e. this must be sent to the court and to you. Sending it to the court alone isn't good enough). If they're posting it, that means they'll actually need to send it by 04/09/19 to ensure it reaches you per the deemed service provisions. Do NOT accept service by email.

If it's late, demand a certificate of service from C and if one is not supplied notify the court that it was served late.

Sorry Johnersh, C being Claimant? Just to be sure?

And in terms of notifying the court, would this simply be by letter addressed to the court wih my case reference number?

[Deleted User]

Yep. I'm lazy. C=Claimant D=Defendant