County Court Claim - Defence + Counterclaim

Fruitcake

Exhibits are normally identified by your initials followed by a number. If my real name was Fruitcake, my exhibits would be numbered, FC1, FC2, etcetera.

Le_Kirk

We usually say use your initials and a number like this (where ABC are your initials) ABC_001, ABC_002 etc but so long as anyone reading it can understand it and the exhibits are clearly labelled with the same numbering system that you choose it should be fine.

Le_Kirk

In the beginning you repeat that your defence and counterclaim are repeated.  You cannot add to the defence already submitted and your WS is in support of and backs up the defence as well as providing evidence.

theeagleman

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11wOMhEXrsmOl4Wo-dS00wQ-oIH5h4m-S/view - a fresh go at it.

Regarding their defence to the counterclaim... not sure how to answer the following.

3.The Claimant requests that the Counterclaim be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) as the Statement of
Case does not:-
a. Comply with Practice Direction 16;
b. Disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing a claim; or
c. Offer any explanation as to how the amount sought has been calculated.
4. Whilst the Claimant maintains the claim should be struck out automatically due to non-compliance
with the CPR, in the event that the Court is not minded to do so, the points raised in the Counterclaim
are responded to as follows:-
5. An element of the Counterclaim appears to be an injury claim for distress. This is denied. It is stated
in the Money Claims Online user guide that this service is not to be used to make a claim for
compensation. Additionally, the Defendant has failed to follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal
Injury Claims;

Thanks again for all your support.

Johnersh

OK so if you read bg v ferguson you'll see at the end of the judgment the relevant particulars are described - the course of conduct giving rise to the harassment.

I think it is correct that your pleading could be better, but perspective is needed. They have a copy of *every* letter or should do. They commissioned those services.

Their particulars of claim will also be woeful and fail to set out the terms of the contract they were pursuing. They are in essence, seeking to have their cake and eat it.

The point about mcol is feeble. Mcol is a scheme for the online issue of claims. It would be perverse if it operated to preclude appropriate defences (and counterclaims) being filed merely because of the selection by the claimant of the online scheme. This is a complete misunderstanding/mischaracterisation of the claims process. The rules are what are important here - as far as I can see (do check yourself) There are no restrictions within CPR PD7E, Part 20 or Part 27 that operate to preclude a counterclaim for distress.

The claimant issued proceedings, there was no scope to pursue any protocols at that juncture. Indeed, their complaint appears to be that you are defending with a counterclaim, not that they were denied the opportunity to settle the counterclaim earlier.

Strictly speaking guidelines for general damages fall within brackets, so beyond claiming where you fall within the bracket, that cannot be itemised. I've not seen what is claimed here, but note the brackets are modest. 

Humdinger1

The PPCs are thrashing about like crazy lassoed mustangs... do you think they haven't come to terms with the new reality at all? Or are they hoping that if they ignore it and carry on,  it will all go away @Johnersh? I've never had an ticket but as a believer in fair play and standing up to bullies, I'm addicted this board.  Thanks again for everything that you and the other regulars on here do.  Humdinger 

Johnersh

FWIW it's not a good defence to the part 20 claim inmho.

when the court of appeal opine that a course of commercial debt collection *can* (not does) amount to harassment, I'd be less bold than the ppc is when saying "nothing to see here"

Taken with pofa schedule 4, I'd also have been more hesitatant to positively assert that there was ever a viable case against the keeper, if appropriate driver detail was given.

It's still on the o/p to establish that the letters were sufficient in number/type to cause the distress. Good witness statements required, obviously. 

theeagleman

Johnersh said:

FWIW it's not a good defence to the part 20 claim inmho.

It's still on the o/p to establish that the letters were sufficient in number/type to cause the distress. Good witness statements required, obviously. 

Any suggestions on how to improve the WS? - what element of part 20 is weak in your opinion?

 

The letters themselves did a bit, but given that I provided the information, I did not expect to continue to claim to be honest.

Got a letter from employer taking some stress-related sick leave soon after receiving the court claim.

Johnersh

Their defence to your part 20 is weak.

Not looked at the WS as it requires my personal details to access.  I try not to do that. 

theeagleman

Johnersh said:

Their defence to your part 20 is weak.

Not looked at the WS as it requires my personal details to access.  I try not to do that. 

Maybe dropbox would help - no personal details required to be input

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bwn0s0eqd3nsoqz/WITNESS STATEMENT - REDACTED.pdf?dl=0