Missed "Letter Before Court Action" - Please help!

Coupon-mad

_blueberry_ said:

@1505grandad - eagle eye!  Thanks for that, no idea how I missed it.

Would you mind re-posting your final version of your WS with that sentence edited out?

I've been signposting people to your WS as a good example and I'd hate for newbies to copy that! 

_blueberry_

Does anybody have the POC used in the Murch case as a comparison?  I would like to be able to say something like "with a similarly vague POC" but wouldnt want to say that if that is not the case?

Yes, ofcourse, happy to re-post once the wording is updated.

Coupon-mad

It's as seen in the judgment.

_blueberry_

Actually never mind, it was paragraph 5 of the Judges report.  Putting here in text in case anybody searches for it.

Claim for monies relating to a parking charge for parking in a private car park manage by the claimant in breach of the terms and conditions (T&Cs).  Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T&Cs of use.  ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering and exiting the site.  Debt + damages claimed sum of £236.  Violation date: 06.01.2017.  Time in: 15:14.  Time out: 20:04.

_blueberry_

Arguably the above is far more descriptive as it at least lists the time in / out and suggests what the violation may have related to.  The POC in this case has virtually no details whatsoever.

Perhaps something on these lines?

The Defendant asks the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge HHC Murch (August 2023), and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC.  The POC in the Murch case at the very least had a hint of the contravention in terms of how long the Defendant in that case had parked on the premises, whereas in this case the Claimant has made virtually no effort to even suggest what the alleged contravention may have been.  In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

_blueberry_

Actually this may be better:

The Defendant asks the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge HHC Murch (August 2023), and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC.  It is worth noting that in the Murch case, the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the defendant's parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violation.  In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

_blueberry_

Reminder of the POC for this claim: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n5zty7ngqgmprivc9n5sn/poc.png?rlkey=ys8uuvgdsf1scl2dwcru6bckd&dl=0

Coupon-mad

It's not 'the Murch case'.  That sounds a bit rude as that's the honourable Judge's name!

It's either 'the Chan case' or preferably put it in full.

_blueberry_

Updated:

The Defendant asks the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge HHC Murch (August 2023), and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC.  It is worth noting that in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the defendant's parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violation.  In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

KeithP

_blueberry_ said:

Actually this may be better:

The Defendant asks the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge HHC Murch (August 2023), and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC.  It is worth noting that in the Murch case, the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the defendant's parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violation.  In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

I was going to make a similar comment to CM's but more specifically...

You appear to be talking about two different cases here...
1) the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge HHC Murch (August 2023), and
2) the Civil Enforcement v Chan case.

They appear unrelated in your proposed text.