General Form of Judgment or Order

lukeq12

Afternoon,

have followed all the advise on the newbie thread through to submitting a defense to CC and filling out an N180. I have now received the attached letter and wondered if anyone could shed some light on what this means and what (if anything) I should be doing now ?

any advice is appreciated thank you  

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

It looks like a Judge at Basildon has decided that the case brought against you is, at best, poorly pleaded.

He has instructed the Claimant to file and serve better, more comprehensive, Particulars by 18th August.

You then have the opportunity to replace the Defence you have already filed with one which will more suitably address the revised Particulars. Having seen the revised Particulars, you should file a replacement Defence, and serve a copy on the Claimant, by 1st September.


That's unusual but it looks like this Judge is getting fed up with sloppy claims being filed by cowboy parking companies.

Who is the Claimant?

Do you feel able to share with us the Defence you have already filed? This may be a good opportunity to hone your Defence towards even more perfect perfection.  

lukeq12

Hi Keith,

thank you for your response, it is much appreciated. 

please see below my defence (edited section within the claim template) and DCBL particulars of claim.

the claimant is Highview parking 

Fruitcake

What happened when you complained to the landowner and building manager?

Have you checked your post and emails today, including the junk/spam folders? 
See what others say, but I would suggest that if you haven't received amended particulars of claim by 4.01pm today, you should send to the court tomorrow morning when they open a draft order for the claim to be struck out and costs awarded to you.
You could then back this up with a 'phone call, but you will probably have a long wait before it is answered.

Mouse007

Well I'll admit I'm no expert, but that amended particulars of claim does not appear to comply with the court order to specify if the claim is being brought under Sch 4 PoFA.

and failure to comply with this direction will result in the claim being struck out automatically.

Umkomaas

The new POC are confused.

a) Parking Term 'Permit Holders Only' (response #5 by solicitors)
b) Alleged contravention 'The driver failed to make payment' (#9)

Was there any facility to make any form of payment?

If a) then this must be a case of trespass which only a landowner can prosecute
If b) and no payment method available, then any contract is void for impossibility. 

You do know what happens to fully defended Highview/DCB Legal, don't you?  Read on .....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

Castle

Umkomaas said:

The new POC are confused.

a) Parking Term 'Permit Holders Only' (response #5 by solicitors)
b) Alleged contravention 'The driver failed to make payment' (#9)

Was there any facility to make any form of payment?

If a) then this must be a case of trespass which only a landowner can prosecute
If b) and no payment method available, then any contract is void for impossibility. 

You do know what happens to fully defended Highview/DCB Legal, don't you?  Read on .....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

I think they mean that the Driver failed to make payment of the NTD-Question is, was a NTD ever left on the vehicle?

Mouse007

Castle said:

I think they mean that the Driver failed to make payment of the NTD-Question is, was a NTD ever left on the vehicle?

I think the OP would have told us if the car (which was never out of their sight) had been ticketed.

KeithP

I wonder why these two figures are different in that document...

Johnersh

The claimant may have just made a bad position worse 

DW190

KeithP said:

I wonder why these two figures are different in that document...

For the same reason they have not pleaded POFA.

Incompetence