My parking bay - County Court claim received!

Coupon-mad

You don't need paragraph 12.

As you are a tenant, I don't think referring to 'my ownership' or calling yourself a 'landholder' is right.

This also needs the addition of the word 'me':

3.       Despite me being an authorised resident at the flat and being allocated parking bay number XXXX in accordance with the Lease (exhibit xxx), a parking charge was issued to the vehicle by the Claimant.

Quitto

Coupon-mad said:

You don't need paragraph 12.

As you are a tenant, I don't think referring to 'my ownership' or calling yourself a 'landholder' is right.

Do you suggest I change the wording throughout to use tenant instead of landholder? What shall I replace "owned", "owner", "ownership" with?

Quitto

Am I not the landholder for the duration of the lease?

Quitto

Paragraph 12 is removed.

All references to "owner", "landholder" etc. removed and replaced with "tenant", "leaseholder" etc. 

I have also replaced any references to the "defendant" with "I", "me" etc. 

Anything else? 

Coupon-mad

You are not a leaseholder; that's the flat owner.

pcn_rights

Coupon-mad said:

You don't need paragraph 12.

As you are a tenant, I don't think referring to 'my ownership' or calling yourself a 'landholder' is right.

This also needs the addition of the word 'me':

3.       Despite me being an authorised resident at the flat and being allocated parking bay number XXXX in accordance with the Lease (exhibit xxx), a parking charge was issued to the vehicle by the Claimant.

In the claimant's WS, they also accuse that my defence was copy & paste from the internet:
"The result of the Defendant's use of this internet template defence is that both the court and the Claimant's solicitors have had to review and respond to a large volume of information, most of which is beyond the knowledge of the Defendant and therefore nonsensical and/or irrelevant. This is wholly unreasonable from a resourcing point of view given this is a simple small claims matter for a contractual charge payable for breach of a contractual licence as set out above." 
"As the internet content has been copied verbatim, the Statement of Truth patently cannot cover the pleading."

Don't I need to comment on this and why?

Thank you!! 

KeithP

@pcn_rights, this is your first post on this thread.
It will confuse everyone if you are trying to progress this issue using more than one username.

B789

That is just a standard "template" argument they, hypocritically, add. Is the WS from the solicitors para-legal or from the Claimants para-legal? Either way, there's plenty you can counter with in your WS...

 Your response, if any, to that drivel is to argue that "embarrassingly" this serial, roboclaim litigator has itself used a "template" to now accuse the defendant of being untruthful because, as a litigant in person with no legal training, you have relied on sources available to you on the internet to learn how to put together a valid defence against woefully inadequate particulars of claim (PoC).

You should ask the Judge to look at the sparse/generic PoC in this case and compare it to the sudden (different and accusatory) allegations in the Claimant's legal representative's witness statement. The Claimants para-legal cannot know what is "beyond the knowledge of the Defendant" and which constitutes a personal attack and an unpleaded ambush, defying any reasonable explanation.

In Rothschild v Charmaine De Souza (2018] EWHC 1855 (Fam), one of many cases which demonstrate the danger of including invective in witness statements; in a short closing remark, Mr Justice Mostyn stated that unjustified attacks in witness statements like this should affect costs.  It is not a third party paralegal's place to suddenly and disingenuously attack me with bald assertions about my knowledge.

Further, you should ask that the Judge might consider striking out all or part of the Claimants so-called witness statement as they most likely have never been to the car park in question.  The para-legal making these unpleaded and unevidenced allegations is not a true witness, nor are they even an employee of the Claimant.

How on earth are you supposed to research your defence if you are not legally trained when defending the template robo-claims from this serial litigator?

pcn_rights

B789 said:

That is just a standard "template" argument they, hypocritically, add. Is the WS from the solicitors para-legal or from the Claimants para-legal? Either way, there's plenty you can counter with in your WS...

 Your response, if any, to that drivel is to argue that "embarrassingly" this serial, roboclaim litigator has itself used a "template" to now accuse the defendant of being untruthful because, as a litigant in person with no legal training, you have relied on sources available to you on the internet to learn how to put together a valid defence against woefully inadequate particulars of claim (PoC).

You should ask the Judge to look at the sparse/generic PoC in this case and compare it to the sudden (different and accusatory) allegations in the Claimant's legal representative's witness statement. The Claimants para-legal cannot know what is "beyond the knowledge of the Defendant" and which constitutes a personal attack and an unpleaded ambush, defying any reasonable explanation.

In Rothschild v Charmaine De Souza (2018] EWHC 1855 (Fam), one of many cases which demonstrate the danger of including invective in witness statements; in a short closing remark, Mr Justice Mostyn stated that unjustified attacks in witness statements like this should affect costs.  It is not a third party paralegal's place to suddenly and disingenuously attack me with bald assertions about my knowledge.

Further, you should ask that the Judge might consider striking out all or part of the Claimants so-called witness statement as they most likely have never been to the car park in question.  The para-legal making these unpleaded and unevidenced allegations is not a true witness, nor are they even an employee of the Claimant.

How on earth are you supposed to research your defence if you are not legally trained when defending the template robo-claims from this serial litigator?

Thank you very much. The WS is from a para-legal from BW legal.
That's exactly my reaction when I see their WS...surely their WS is from a template. 

They also have submitted a Skeleton Argument starting with:
"This skeleton is filed by the Claimant because it is the Claimant's solicitors' belief that the Defendant has filed a template defence commonly found on internet forums seeking to challenge parking charges. One frequently used forum can be found on www.moneysavingexpert.com.

As the Court will appreciate, CPR 32 confirms that evidence should address facts.

The Defence largely seeks to rely on technical arguments based on case law and legislation which therefore fails to comply with CPR 16.5 requiring a Defendant to admit or deny (with reasons) the Claimant's allegations in a claim.

Therefore, in order to make the best use of the Court's time, the Claimant's solicitors

• Only respond to the facts stated in the Defence in the Claimant's witness statement. This ensures that the hearing can focus on the facts of the case at the hearing; and
• Address the technical issues of the Claim and any technical issues raised in the Defence in this Skeleton, so that the Court can decide which, if any, of these technical points should to be considered at the final hearing."

Honestly, my defence was carefully adapted, fully relevant to my case...


Later they say:

"The Claimant doubts that the Defendant has spent much time at all on their Defence, given that the majority has been simply copied from the internet and pasted into a separate document. Indeed, the relevant thread on www.moneysavingexpert.com previously boasted "PLEASE READ THIS POST FIRST TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE THE NEW 2020 TEMPLATE DEFENCE, WHICH CAN BE ADAPTED IN HALF AN HOUR (honestly!)."

I am really not sure what I'm dealing with...is this para-legal particular? 

Do I need to comment on their Skeleton Argument?

KeithP

Pick one word from the Claimant's Witness Statement... nonsensical.

Stick that word in the forum's search facility and see how many times it appears.

And they are complaining about you using a template??