County Court Defence Help Please

dollydoodar

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Unless the OP qualifies for free court fees, based on income grounds (it's a higher ceiling than some might think, and not just for people on benefits). I'd qualify myself, based on my income I think, as I am semi retired!

I do qualify for free court fees. Can you please advise as to what stage I need to amend my defence and who to and how to send it please? Do I rewrite it and send it to the same place or do I have to ask to do so first? Thank you x

Coupon-mad

You need to apply now using form N244 and apply to the Court to amend your defence. If it is not yet allocated to a local court then email the completed and signed form N244, plus the amended defence, to the CCBC email address and ALSO to be courteous, email a copy to the other side's solicitor so they see it and realise it replaces your previous defence.

State in the email subject line to the CCBC that you qualify for help with fees and as such no fee should be paid and (as well as the claim number of course) show them the ref number that the 'Help with Court Fees' webpage issues you with, as you need to apply there first, for the N244 amended defence application fee to be covered.

But what you need to do in terms of an amended defence is strike out the parts of the defence you do not want, then add to your defence in RED the parts you are adding or changing.

So, the bits you do not need struck through in black line and the added parts must be in red. You MUST start with your existing old defence and 'amend' it exactly like that.

But do you need to? What was so bad about the old one?

Can you copy it here again please as we have no time to go back & find it on a previous page! What do you think needs adding or changing?

dollydoodar

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to apply now using form N244 and apply to the Court to amend your defence. If it is not yet allocated to a local court then email the completed and signed form N244, plus the amended defence, to the CCBC email address and ALSO to be courteous, email a copy to the other side's solicitor so they see it and realise it replaces your previous defence.

State in the email subject line to the CCBC that you qualify for help with fees and as such no fee should be paid and (as well as the claim number of course) show them the ref number that the 'Help with Court Fees' webpage issues you with, as you need to apply there first, for the N244 amended defence application fee to be covered.

But what you need to do in terms of an amended defence is strike out the parts of the defence you do not want, then add to your defence in RED the parts you are adding or changing.

So, the bits you do not need struck through in black line and the added parts must be in red. You MUST start with your existing old defence and 'amend' it exactly like that.

But do you need to? What was so bad about the old one?

Can you copy it here again please as we have no time to go back & find it on a previous page! What do you think needs adding or changing?

Para 6 is totally wrong...

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed.

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx xxx in question at the time of the alleged incident. The Defendant was not the driver of said vehicle. The vehicle entered xxxxxxxxxxx car park and parked in a disabled bay. The driver was unaware that Civil Enforcement Limited had recently taken over management of the car park and when doing so had decided to start charging disabled patrons. Previously, disabled patrons were able to park for free.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate 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.The Claim Form issued on the xxxxxxxx by xxxxxxx 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.

5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

5.1. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that 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.

No standing or landowner authority!

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 under defined parameters and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

No legitimate interest or commercial justification!

8. It is the Defendant's case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing defendant for a hundredfold penalty, for the ordinary and reasonable conduct explained in this defence.!

8.1. The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

9. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

9.1. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

9.2. The!Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis!case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in!Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

9.3. It is trite law that non-existent and untrue 'legal costs' are also unrecoverable. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.!

9.4. According to!Ladak v DRC Locums!UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.!

9.5. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

9.6. Court Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.

(a) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

(b) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstone’s' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model. The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. The judgment for these three example cases stated:!

''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in!ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

9.7. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

9.8.There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.!

9.9. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.!

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, where the sparse cut & paste particulars are embarrassing and give rise to no recognisable claim in law.

11. When Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) or alternatively, for the hearing fee to be ordered to be paid before exchange of documents between the parties, because where a claim from this serial Claimant is robustly defended, this Claimant routinely discontinues after seeing a Defendant's Witness Statement and never pays the court hearing fee.

12. It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Defendant to spend hours on their defence against a vexatious litigant who then discontinues. Research shows that this Claimant is regularly observed as being in pursuit of default judgments to use as an aggressive form of debt collection, with no intention of paying for or attending the majority of hearings.

13. 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 confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Coupon-mad

Para 6 is about signage and can never be wrong, we use it in every case:

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that 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.

That defence looks good, as long as para 2 is correct, with all the facts being right.

What aspects are you worried about it?

dollydoodar

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Para 6 is about signage and can never be wrong, we use it in every case:

That defence looks good, as long as para 2 is correct, with all the facts being right.

What aspects are you worried about it?

It is definitely wrong. It say it is denied that the font is too small. I was hopeful that they may not notice as a few haven't...

Le_Kirk

This error was pointed out to you in posts #43 & #44 (mainly by 1505grandad) and you had already sent it by then.

waamo

Personally I wouldn't bother about getting that amended. It's a simple typo and the meaning is clear. I think it's easy to explain and shouldn't cause an issue.

Coupon-mad

I agree. I never even noticed!

It is a typo that can be put right at Witness Statement and evidence stage.

dollydoodar

okay I shall leave it. you guys know best.

is there a way for admin to search for that typo error as I copied it from someone else's defence posted on here? just an idea, in case someone else copies it!

Thanks for all your help guys I shall update as and when.....

dollydoodar

hi everyone. it has been a long while but i have finally received my court date for july. thought i would post it up fo all to see...https://ibb.co/sH5XW77