Received a Letter Before Claim from SIP as claimant and solicitor

Coupon-mad

ScammingIndustry said:

Do they not have to abide by the cost shown on letter before claim? If so, surely I have a very strong case now that they have added £60.

They should have added false admin on letter before claim too?

It is surprising they didn't.

Has SIP filed this claim themselves with no solicitor on the claim form (left hand side)?

It is a dog's dinner!

A main point made in the template defence already, is that the added £60 per PCN is a false cost that was not incurred.  The fact that the LBC didn't mention any damages or further costs is worth a mention in your facts section you are adding, maybe a long paragraph 4 like this:


4.  The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim ('POC') as pleaded on the Claim Form are deficient, and do not comply with CPR 16.4. The POC fail to properly specify which term(s) are alleged to have been breached, nor do they even set out the individual reason for issue of each of the purported but unidentified "8 parking charges".  No actual dates of these supposedly separate 'contractual agreements' are specified.  No PCN reference numbers are noted to narrow the issues to any specific 'PCNs'.  The amount of each PCN - which may or may not all incur the same charge, given the alleged 'breaches' differ - is not stated at all.

4.1.  Instead, generic wording has been used and two possible (completely different) terms/alleged breaches are stated but with no explanation to show which alleged breach applies to which parking charge.  Nor does the Claimant state a basis of claim regarding alleged liability: i.e. whether the Defendant is being pursued as the driver or as the registered keeper on each of the 8 occasions.  Each parking charge presumably relates to a separate date but instead the Claimant has provided a range of dates "between 16/11/2020 and 1/10/2021"; a vague period spanning almost a year.

4.2.  The Defendant should not have to look back through pre-action correspondence to clarify the matter and address shortfalls in the POC, but even when the Defendant looked to the Letter before Claim ('LBC') for clarity, it does not match the sum claimed in any shape or form and the Claimant was not seeking a four figure sum.  No 'damages' were set out in the LBC at all.  As well as paying no regard to the CPRs regarding POC, this Claimant also breached the pre-action protocol, by issuing a LBC that bears no relation to this claimed sum.

4.3.  Further, the claim as pleaded, does not add up. The final sentence of the POC says in black & white: "the amount claimed is for the contractually agreed to sum of £100, Debt damage costs of £60".  Liability for any sum at all (whether in contract, tort or in damages) is expressly denied but this claim, as pleaded, equates to a quantum of £160 in total.  Not £1280.

4.4.  The Defendant asks the court to consider how they are expected to respond to unidentifiable and unspecified allegations.  Based on these woefully generic template POC, the Claimant could now bring any eight PCNs (that happen to fall within their date range) into evidence in their later witness statement.

4.5. This scattergun approach surely offends against the CPRs.  The Claimant could easily have served separate detailed particulars if the dates and details of "8 PCNs" were difficult to specify in the confines of the MCOL box, but apparently this serial litigator parking operator Claimant opted not to bother, knowing that most parking charge claims are a shoo-in and will move automatically to default judgments which uses the court as a lucrative form of exaggerated debt collection.  Being over £600, had this Claimant got this case past the defence hurdle with no scrutiny by a Judge, they could then have sent in HCEOs within weeks.  It seems the approach here by Simple Intelligent Parking is that 'any POC will do.'

4.6. In fact, the Claimant was required to provide a concise statement of facts relied upon, in order to inform the court and the Defendant exactly what the allegations are.  This Claimant cannot reasonably expect a Defendant to reply to generic 'parking roboclaim' wording, non-existent details, a year-long range of dates and incoherent POC where the prayer on the left asks for a total 'claimed amount' of £160 but the text box on the right demands £1280.

4.7. The Court is invited to strike out the claim for this reason, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.  If the allocating Judge agrees with the Defendant about the shockingly defective POC, the court is urged not to waste any more of the court's time on handing the Claimant a lifeline by allowing them to reissue more detailed POC and letting the gravy train roll on.  District Judge Sprague sitting at the County Court at Luton struck out a similar defectively pleaded claim in January 2023 at allocation stage, declaring:

"upon it having been entirely within the Claimant's solicitor's gift to properly plead the Claim at the outset, and upon the claim being for a very modest sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Court 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) to order further particulars, to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Claim is struck out."

ScammingIndustry

Wow! That was a joy to read, absolutely loved it!

Thank you for adding little sauce into my paragraph 4. 

As for SIP, they are acting as claimant and solicitor. In house salaried solicitors by the looks of it therefore no reason why they should be adding extra cost anyway.

Massive thank you for the above🤝

ScammingIndustry

I will follow the defence template once it is written in full.

this is what I have written so far, could you please guide me if more needs to be added?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in

question but liability is denied.

3. The defendant used the car park multiple times and paid for it. However, it was brought to the defendants attention that the claimants are overcharging for using the car park despite the signs showing different costs to use the car park. The defendant contacted claimants regarding the tariff displayed when receiving the letter of claim. The claimant dismissed the defendants letter stating the signs correspond to the charges displayed on pay and display machine, and are independently checked. Upon the defendants complaint, correct charges were added on the pay and display machine despite the claimant denying charging more than displayed tariff.

3.1 The signs were also barely legible for the defendant and misleading as it did not correspond to the signs displayed.

4.  The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim ('POC') as pleaded on the Claim Form are deficient, and do not comply with CPR 16.4. The POC fail to properly specify which term(s) are alleged to have been breached, nor do they even set out the individual reason for issue of each of the purported but unidentified "8 parking charges".  No actual dates of these supposedly separate 'contractual agreements' are specified.  No PCN reference numbers are noted to narrow the issues to any specific 'PCNs'.  The amount of each PCN - which may or may not all incur the same charge, given the alleged 'breaches' differ - is not stated at all.

4.1.  Instead, generic wording has been used and two possible (completely different) terms/alleged breaches are stated but with no explanation to show which alleged breach applies to which parking charge.  Nor does the Claimant state a basis of claim regarding alleged liability: i.e. whether the Defendant is being pursued as the driver or as the registered keeper on each of the 8 occasions.  Each parking charge presumably relates to a separate date but instead the Claimant has provided a range of dates "between 16/11/2020 and 1/10/2021"; a vague period spanning almost a year.

4.2.  The Defendant should not have to look back through pre-action correspondence to clarify the matter and address shortfalls in the POC, but even when the Defendant looked to the Letter before Claim ('LBC') for clarity, it does not match the sum claimed in any shape or form and the Claimant was not seeking a four figure sum.  No 'damages' were set out in the LBC at all.  As well as paying no regard to the CPRs regarding POC, this Claimant also breached the pre-action protocol, by issuing a LBC that bears no relation to this claimed sum.

4.3.  Further, the claim as pleaded, does not add up. The final sentence of the POC says in black & white: "the amount claimed is for the contractually agreed to sum of £100, Debt damage costs of £60".  Liability for any sum at all (whether in contract, tort or in damages) is expressly denied but this claim, as pleaded, equates to a quantum of £160 in total.  Not £1280.

4.4.  The Defendant asks the court to consider how they are expected to respond to unidentifiable and unspecified allegations.  Based on these woefully generic template POC, the Claimant could now bring any eight PCNs (that happen to fall within their date range) into evidence in their later witness statement.

4.5. This scattergun approach surely offends against the CPRs.  The Claimant could easily have served separate detailed particulars if the dates and details of "8 PCNs" were difficult to specify in the confines of the MCOL box, but apparently this serial litigator parking operator Claimant opted not to bother, knowing that most parking charge claims are a shoo-in and will move automatically to default judgments which uses the court as a lucrative form of exaggerated debt collection.  Being over £600, had this Claimant got this case past the defence hurdle with no scrutiny by a Judge, they could then have sent in HCEOs within weeks.  It seems the approach here by Simple Intelligent Parking is that 'any POC will do.'

4.6. In fact, the Claimant was required to provide a concise statement of facts relied upon, in order to inform the court and the Defendant exactly what the allegations are.  This Claimant cannot reasonably expect a Defendant to reply to generic 'parking roboclaim' wording, non-existent details, a year-long range of dates and incoherent POC where the prayer on the left asks for a total 'claimed amount' of £160 but the text box on the right demands £1280.

4.7. The Court is invited to strike out the claim for this reason, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.  If the allocating Judge agrees with the Defendant about the shockingly defective POC, the court is urged not to waste any more of the court's time on handing the Claimant a lifeline by allowing them to reissue more detailed POC and letting the gravy train roll on.  District Judge Sprague sitting at the County Court at Luton struck out a similar defectively pleaded claim in January 2023 at allocation stage, declaring:

"upon it having been entirely within the Claimant's solicitor's gift to properly plead the Claim at the outset, and upon the claim being for a very modest sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Court 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) to order further particulars, to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Claim is struck out."

PARAGRAPH 4 ONWARDS IS COURTESY OF Coupon-mad.

Coupon-mad

Yep, I reckon add the rest of the template and sign, date it & email it to the CCBC (do not copy in SIP).

Make sure you get an auto-acknowledgement.

ScammingIndustry

Great! 

If you don't mind me asking, is there a particular reason not to copy in the claimant? Just for knowledge.

Coupon-mad

You do not have to (the court will in this normal process send them your defence) and with what you are saying - tearing apart their badly pleaded claim - I wouldn't give them an early heads up!

ScammingIndustry

Alright, understood!! Thank you once again for your help!

ScammingIndustry

UPDATE:

I have now received this in the post.

what should I do next? Should I wait for a confirmation that the claimants has completed what they are ordered to do before I type up my witness statement?

KeithP

Is there a paragraph something like this on the next page:

Each party must deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than [ . . . ] [14 days before the hearing].

Those 'documents on which you intend to rely' are your Witness Statement and evidence.

ScammingIndustry

Yes, the above statement you mention is on the next page. However, before I write my witness statement, is it worth me waiting for the claimant to actually do whats ordered of them by the judge? 

Is it common for judge to ask the claimant to do something? If so, surely that's a flaw on their side which makes their claim weak?