County Court Claim, template defence needed

salimnina

Hello,


I parked whilst on a Sunday market, on my way back there was nothing on the windscreen to suggest that I had a fine.


about four weeks later I received a letter from a parking management company requesting money for breaching some sort of parking restriction.


Now I am receiving letter from the court :


Particulars of Claim
The driver of the vehicle with registration L******Z ( The 'vehicle' ) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage ( the ' Contract' ) at UNIT 3-5A WHITE HART LANE - UNIT 3-5 A WHITE HART LANE 550 LONDON N17 7BF , on 05/08/2018 thus incurring the parking charge ( the 'PCN'). The PCN was not paid with 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding libility. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £16.11 pursuat to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.



I also requested SAR from both UKPARK & GLADSTON, but UK Car refused, then accepted after two weeks.


I am relying on this template, is OK ? Thank you in advance for this, I stil have time to defend till 6th of Jan 2020, but as I am away I will need this sorted ideally today.





1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

3. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages for trespass.

4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage at LOCATION sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. There is no offer to park so the defendant has not entered into any contract with the Claimant. It is, therefore, strictly denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. This erroneus claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 or £160 debt. 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 conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

6. 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.

salimnina

OR EXTENSIVE


1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit AM01, Exhibit AM02 and so on.


2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

3. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

4. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg – XXXXXX) in question in this case. No evidence has been supplied by this Claimant as to who parked the vehicle (if it was parked) or that I was the driver. As this event has been resurrected from over a year ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. At the time of the alleged charge, the car was used by several family and friends.

5. According to the Notice to Keeper, the alleged charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on 05.08.2018. UK CPM issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) letter . No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the Notice to Keeper is attached as Exhibit AM__.

6. As the Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), they are required to subscribe to the Approval Operator Scheme (AOS) and adhere to this Code of Practice which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The Claimant has failed to comply with the IPC Code of Practice (See Exhibit AM__) as follows:









9. The Claimant failed to comply IPC Code of Practice Part B 2.2 which states ‘Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code’ (PART E Schedule 1 – Signage).

10. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence, further more, where the car was parked, there was no specific signage erected.


11. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is difficult to notice the signs during the day let alone see them at the night as there is no adequate light on that road or beside the signage. (See Exhibit AM__)

12. There was no signage at the entrance of the retail park that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. (See Exhibit AM__) Also this was designed for customers.



13. It is denied that the signs used by this Claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case 2015.

14. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges". (See Exhibit AM__)

15. The Claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

16. The Claimant is yet to provide evidence of relevant planning permission from the local authority to put up signage in the car park.

17. If the Claimant is using The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 12) to create a keeper liability, POFA 12 Schedule 4, (See Exhibit AM__) at Section 4(5) states that ‘The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper’ in this case £100. The purported added 'costs' for which no calculation or explanation is given are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) (See Exhibit AM__), and the Consumer Rights Act ('the CRA') 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. (See Exhibit AM__)

18. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'recovery costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 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.

19. Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is/was on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

19. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 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.

19.1. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 'damages/costs' are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.

The Beavis case is against this Claim
25. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for the recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. 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 an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters

25.1. This charge is unconscionable and devoid of any 'legitimate interest', given the facts. To quote from the decision in the Beavis case at Para [108]: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''. Ad at [199]: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.''

25.2. In the Beavis case, it was said at para [205]: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

25.3. At para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

25.4. At para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.'' and at para 198: ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''

The POFA 12 and the Accredited Trade Association (ATA) Code of Practice (See Exhibit AM__) are against this Claim
26. POFA 12, Schedule 4 at paras 4(5) and 4(6) 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' (further, 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.

The CRA is against this claim
27. Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 60% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source.

27.1. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) v Davies) (See Exhibit AM__) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

27.2. That decision in Wales was contested in a N244 application by VCS, but the added £60 was still disallowed on 30 Oct 2019. District Judge Jones-Evans stated that even in cases parking firms win, he never allows the £60 add on, and despite parking firms continuing to include it in their Particulars, most advocates have now stopped pushing for it at hearings. The Judge said that a contract formed by signage is a deemed contract, which the motorist does not have the opportunity to negotiate. That, and the fact that there is no specified sum on the signage, means that the extra £60 cannot possibly be recoverable. He said that the £60 was clearly a penalty, and an abuse of process. The considered sum in that case was reduced to £100 with a full case hearing to follow, but the £60 would not be awarded under any circumstances, and further, he ordered that the Claimant must now produce a statement of how they pleaded claims prior to Beavis, and subsequently.

27.3. In Claim numbers, F0DP806M and F0DP201T (See Exhibit AM__, a court report) - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another - less than two weeks later - the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire.

27.3.1. Cases summarily struck out in that circuit included British Parking Association (BPA) members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and IPC members using Gladstones' robo-claim model, and the Orders from that court were identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing during a prolonged period in 2019, with the Judge stating: ''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 POFA 12, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in the Beavis case. 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...''

27.3.2. BW Legal made an application objecting to two 'test' cases that had been struck out by District Judge Taylor against a parking firm for trying to claim for £160 instead of £100 parking charge. This has been repeated conduct in recent years, on the back of the Beavis case, where parking firms have almost unanimously contrived to add £60, or more, on top of the 'parking charge'. Members of both ATAs who have influence on their self-serving 'Trade Bodies' have even voted to have this imaginary 'damages/debt collection' sum added to their respective two Codes of Practice, to create a veil of legitimacy, no doubt to allow their members to confuse consumers and to enable them to continue to 'get away with it' in several court areas which are still allowing this double recovery.

27.3.3. That N244 application to try to protect the cartel-like position of some of the 'bigger player' parking firms, was placed before the area Circuit Judge and a hearing was held on 11th November 2019, with other parking charge cases in that circuit remaining struck out or stayed, pending the outcome. The Defendants successfully argued on points including a citation of the CRA 2015 and the duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice (a statutory duty that falls upon the courts, whether a consumer raises the issue or not). All three points below were robustly upheld by District Judge Grand, sitting at the Southampton Court, who agreed that:
(a) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was in breach of POFA 12, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6).
(b) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
(c) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the additional 'recovery' sum was in small print, hidden, or in the cases before him, not there at all, is void for uncertainty and in breach of the CRA 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

27.3.4. At the hearing, the Judge refused their request to appeal. It was successfully argued that the parking firm's consumer notice stood in breach of the CRA 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14. Using the statutory duty upon the Courts to consider the test of fairness and properly apply schedule 2 of the CRA 2015 it was irrelevant whether or not the consumers' defences had raised it before, which they had not. The same issues apply to this claim.

.

31. 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, harassing and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made.


I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true

salimnina

I have been away and just got bak, was unable to collect my paperwork, now I will be away from tomorrow till th 8th of Jan, so I might be out of time to defend this, thats why I am looking at similar cases and copying and pasting, and trying to tweck this

Redx

Much too short , read other UKCPM threads like the hsc911 thread you posted in by mistake

Add poor signage , no landowner authority , abuse of process , the CRA , POFA , and anything else , check the 2 examples by member Bargepole and follow his formatting , address the POC too

No exhibits are sent in or attached , no links , nothing , just a text defence why you are not liable , plus objecting to the spurious added charges

The extensive one is not a defence , it's a witness statement , not required at this time

Post the issue date from the claim form below

salimnina

[FONT=&quot]1. I am the Defendant, Mr XX , and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event. I went to Hss hire store in the location of the alledged offence, unaware the store were closed on Sunday, I did not return to my car where it was parked for few minutes, there was no clear signage to restrict parking, even though it apeared that such parking bays were reserved to customers, like my self. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence, further more, where the car was parked, there was no specific signage erected. The Claimant is yet to provide evidence of relevant planning permission from the local authority to put up signage in the car park.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Few weeks later, I received a letter requesting money from UK Park Management for an alledged parking contravention. I requested further information from UK Park Mangement to establish the legality of the fees, however they reserved the right under the data protection act, which seemed to me not credible party to deal with.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

Preliminary matters:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5.[/FONT]The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. This erroneus claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 or £160 debt. 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 conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.


[FONT=&quot] 6. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] In further support of there being a want of cause of action:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 7. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 8. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 9. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 10. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 11. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 12. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true[/FONT]

salimnina

PS. Do I need evidence ? supporting documents, I must admit I am loking around and try to find any similar situation.

Redx

salimnina wrote: »

PS. Do I need evidence ? supporting documents, I must admit I am loking around and try to find any similar situation.

not until much nearer the court date, at the witness statement plus exhibits (evidence) plus costs schedule stage

read the timeline by Bargepole in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, post #2 , near the top of the forum

if you are admitting to be the driver, then POFA wont help you very much, it protects keepers, not admitted drivers


the only thing the CCBC want is your defence, preferably emailed, as a pdf text document, nothing more


what is the ISSUE DATE on your claim form ?

salimnina

Redx wrote: »

not until much nearer the court date, at the witness statement plus exhibits (evidence) plus costs schedule stage

read the timeline by Bargepole in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, post #2 , near the top of the forum

if you are admitting to be the driver, then POFA wont help you very much, it protects keepers, not admitted drivers


the only thing the CCBC want is your defence, preferably emailed, as a pdf text document, nothing more


what is the ISSUE DATE on your claim form ?

Issue date is 6.12.19

KeithP

salimnina wrote: »

Issue date is 6.12.19

You have made no mention of having filed an Acknowledgment of Service. If you have already done so, then please skip the next paragraph.

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th December, you have until Monday 30th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To file an AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 8th January 2020 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could 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. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it 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 an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are trying to keep you under pressure. Just file it.
   
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.

salimnina

KeithP wrote: »

You have made no mention of having filed an Acknowlegment of Service. If you have already done so, then please ignore the next paragraph.

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th December, you have until Monday 30th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To file an AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 8th January 2020 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested 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 [EMAIL="CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk"]CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk[/EMAIL]
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. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not, chase the CCBC until it is.
7. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are trying to keep you under pressure. Just file it.
8. 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.

Thanks, I have acknowledged it. It's good to confirm that I will have until thr 8th at 4PM, but as mentioned I will be away, I will try to get connected throughout.



I will do it online though, I am still not sure what kind of evidence I will have to produce.

KeithP

salimnina wrote: »

I will do it online though, I am still not sure what kind of evidence I will have to produce.

It really is time for you to read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

In there you will find out why it is not a good idea to file a Defence online via the MCOL website. It is your choice though.

Redx has already told you that evidence comes later, and again that is fully explained in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

There is a link to the NEWBIES thread in my earlier post - twice in fact.