Defence Advice please CASE STRUCK OUT

Le_Kirk

I see the order uses the OLD statement of truth; you will need to ask Auntie Google for the new one or read some threads on here where it is pointed out quite frequently.

covid1956

UPDATE
1 I am busy with my WS i have today received the claimants WS and they have ended with the old statement of truth, i will highlight this in my WS, i dont imagine a judge will strike the case out because of this error.
2 The instructions from the court state the WS should be no more than 50 pages theirs is 52 pages, again an error by them but a game changer ? probably not
3 They state they have not recieved my defence, I sent it to the Court business centre i did not copy the claimant, was i supposed to, i did copy the DQ to them
Advice please 
thanks
Covid

nosferatu1001

I would ask them to file a proper WS, and that you will ask the court to strike this out if they dont. Theyve had two months to get used to it.
Object to it as it is a breach of the courts order. 
Not your fault, they know the CCBC serves it, and they therefore should have asked about it bloody months ago. Not your problem.

Redx

As above , the CCBC sends them your defence , not your problem , it's between the claimant and the CCBC , a service they paid for when they issued the claim

By all means point out their failings

covid1956

Ta Nosferatu1001
Further info  They are quoting these references
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking 1971 2 qb 163
Vine v Waltham Forest LBC 2002WLR 2383 2390
Parking eye v Beavis 2015  67
Chaplair Ltd v Kumari 2015 ewca 798
I will google these to try and find out if any of these examples are relevant to me, its all getting a bit intimidating, but i guess this is part of the tactics
look forward to your comments
Covid 

nosferatu1001

I would even point that out - that it sugegsts their case management is so poor they didnt even realise they had a defence until they wrote their WS, approx X months after they knew it should have been received.

KeithP

nosferatu1001 said:

I would even point that out - that it sugegsts their case management is so poor they didnt even realise they had a defence until they wrote their WS, approx X months after they knew it should have been received.

...particularly as they acknowledged receipt of the Defence and indicated their intention to continue by filing a Directions Questionnaire.

OP, do you have a copy of their DQ?

Le_Kirk

covid1956 said:

Ta Nosferatu1001
Further info  They are quoting these references
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking 1971 2 qb 163
Vine v Waltham Forest LBC 2002WLR 2383 2390
Parking eye v Beavis 2015  67
Chaplair Ltd v Kumari 2015 ewca 798
I will google these to try and find out if any of these examples are relevant to me, its all getting a bit intimidating, but i guess this is part of the tactics
look forward to your comments
Covid 

All standard stuff designed to scare you but you can often use it against them, just look at Thornton, which was a damages claim!  The case was about when the contract was formed and when the terms and conditions were accepted, outside the car park or when taking the ticket.  Check out all of them to see if they fit your circumstances!

covid1956

KeithP said:

nosferatu1001 said:

I would even point that out - that it sugegsts their case management is so poor they didnt even realise they had a defence until they wrote their WS, approx X months after they knew it should have been received.

...particularly as they acknowledged receipt of the Defence and indicated their intention to continue by filing a Directions Questionnaire.

OP, do you have a copy of their DQ?

No DQ from them, sent mine to Courts Office and copy to them in April
Covid

nosferatu1001

DOesnt matter - they had to say they were happy to continue when the court informed them of your defence. They did anyway.
So their case management is so poor that they decided to continue having not seen the defence, meaning they are potentially wasting the courts time in a case they cannot win, or they saw the defence and have now lost it, but seem to be blaming the court or the D, for some reason.