Advice for CCJ - Not in country when served

NotAnotherOne

Le_Kirk said:

NotAnotherOne said:

3. The Defendant is to file a Defence within 14 days of the sealed Order; and

Dated 10 April 2024 

NotAnotherOne said:

Right, so I now have until 26th April to file a defence?

Unless my maths is out of order (or there is a different date on that oder that you have shown us) should it not be defence by 24th April.  It doesn't state working days!

Le_Kirk said:

NotAnotherOne said:

3. The Defendant is to file a Defence within 14 days of the sealed Order; and

Dated 10 April 2024 

NotAnotherOne said:

Right, so I now have until 26th April to file a defence?

Unless my maths is out of order (or there is a different date on that oder that you have shown us) should it not be defence by 24th April.  It doesn't state working days!

The letter is dated 12th April by the court and that was when it was stamped, the letter arrived at my address on the 15th April. 

My calculation was from 12th April as I understood that's when the order was stamped by the judge.

I'm probably wrong. 

But I will get a defence sent over by 24th regardless. 

NotAnotherOne

Hey again, 

So in order to prepare my defence asap, I have spent the best part of today roaming around this forum and getting an understanding of what I need to do in order to get my defence ready to send over.

I have copied the below from Johnny86's defence in which @Coupon-mad stated this is a perfect template for all UKPC defendants.

This was roughly a year a go and as far as I've seen on this forum nothing has changed in that respect.

I have changed paragraph 2. which aligns with the most recent template 

And of course I have changed paragraph 3. which relates to my event. 

The rest of the defence from 12 onwards remains the same as the template.

Any comments thoughts on the below would be appreciated. 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver. 

3. The defendant parked their car to attend their job in a parking space which they believed to be a non-permit parking space. Despite actively searching for signage, the defendant only observed one sign in an adjacent car park on a different road, with distinct entry and exit points, unrelated to where the defendant parked. Notably, there were no visible signs indicating permit parking on the side of the road where the defendant parked their car.

 

4. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 

 

5. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

 

6. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 

 

7. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 

 

8. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'" 

9. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 

10. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out. 

Coupon-mad

That is using an out of date first paragraph though, so it can't be based on the current Template Defence.

Not_A_Hope

In para 3 you claim that you ‘the defendant parked their car’. In para 4 you are claiming they ‘cannot  transfer liability for this charge’. If you have admitted as defendant to have parked your car they don’t have to transfer liability! I would suggest you drop para 4.

NotAnotherOne

So I have amended and updated paragraph 1 as per most recent template defence. @Coupon-mad

And have dropped paragraph. @Not_A_Hope

Coupon-mad

Did you show us the POC? Are they inadequate?

NotAnotherOne

Here is the POC...

KeithP

NotAnotherOne said:
Here is the POC...

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.

It is alleged that 'the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on the Claimant's signs (the contract)'.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

Le_Kirk

Taking @KeithP's advice one step further, you can use the @hharry100 (CEL v Chan) defence.  Don't add do much detail to your paragraph #3 as you don't know what the claim is for!

NotAnotherOne

Le_Kirk said:

Taking @KeithP's advice one step further, you can use the @hharry100 (CEL v Chan) defence.  Don't add do much detail to your paragraph #3 as you don't know what the claim is for!

I am actually currently looking at this as you just posted! Thanks for confirming 

I will add in the CEL v Chan defence. 

Just trying to get my head around anything that I need to change that would be specific to my case. 

I've looked at a lot of different defences over the past 24hr's so it get's a little confusing!