PCN with County Court N1 form (Excel (ELMS Legal))

Snakes_Belly

It will be a total waste of your time but can show that you have attempted to engage with the Claimant.  

Ed2022

Snakes_Belly said:

It will be a total waste of your time but can show that you have attempted to engage with the Claimant.  

Agree.
I just really don't want to waste my own time. I did offer a without prejudice offer early on (circa £50) and they subsequently made something similar to extort me for £195 

Snakes_Belly

Ed2022 said:

Snakes_Belly said:

It will be a total waste of your time but can show that you have attempted to engage with the Claimant.  

Agree.
I just really don't want to waste my own time. I did offer a without prejudice offer early on (circa £50) and they subsequently made something similar to extort me for £195 

If you have already offered £50.00 you have tried to engage so don't waste your time.

Castle

Ed2022 said:

Snakes_Belly said:

It will be a total waste of your time but can show that you have attempted to engage with the Claimant.  

Agree.
I just really don't want to waste my own time. I did offer a without prejudice offer early on (circa £50) and they subsequently made something similar to extort me for £195 

Was this offer made before they put the wrong date on the POC?

Ed2022

Castle said:

Ed2022 said:

Snakes_Belly said:

It will be a total waste of your time but can show that you have attempted to engage with the Claimant.  

Agree.
I just really don't want to waste my own time. I did offer a without prejudice offer early on (circa £50) and they subsequently made something similar to extort me for £195 

Was this offer made before they put the wrong date on the POC?

@Castle.

The POC had the wrong date. I made a without prejudice offer, then submitted my Defence, they made this offer and I submitted my N180 form.

And checked my N180 and I ticked the "no mediation" box.

Coupon-mad

I'd just cancel that appointment.

Ed2022

Coupon-mad said:

I'd just cancel that appointment.

Cancelled it thanks.

Snakes_Belly

Johnersh said:

Hang on.... 

If it were me,  I'd only defend regarding the date in the particulars. 

That means all the usual stuff about signage and terms are irrelevant, since objectively the car wasn't actually there. I'd go with a simple denial. 

It is denied that the defendant parked at location x on [date] . 

On date, the defendants vehicle was located at y.  The defendant will produce evidence to the court if required to evidence that. Accordingly,  no contract was capable of being formed with the defendant, driver of the vehicle, or at all. 

The defendant denies that there is any liability to the claimant for the sums claimed in the particulars of claim arising from the alleged breach of contract, costs or interest thereon. 

I would not acknowledge any possibility of error.  (Woodward is relevant ONLY if it is later suggested that the defendant had a duty to put the claimant right).

The particulars are Chock full of typos so a judge could conceivably consider that you should have known what was intended.  To which I'd say - 

1. but that wasn't what they pleaded, 
2. they are professionally represented and the MD of Elms Legal himself (see linkedin) who is also a solicitor has signed and approved the claim form (presumably having checked it). 
3. I simply don't see how it can be suggested that the onus is on a defendant to respond second guessing what claim the claimant intended to bring,  rather than the one made,
4. That parking companies often pursue separate pcns in different sets of proceedings. 
5. Even if you accept it is an error,  you should not be penalised (Woodward) and C must apply to rectify it,  not simply seek the court to ignore the plain meaning of the words used in the particulars. 

I emphasise again.  It is the o/p's case and only he knows the full facts,  so he needs to satisfy himself that he is comfortable with the arguments he intends to make. There are *never* guarantees in litigation.  

Note: The cheapest course will be for C to simply to wait for this to be struck out and then issue fresh court proceedings.  It is most unlikely that they will spend £255 on an application to court. If they want a consent order make sure they offer to bear the costs of their stupidity. 

A question regarding the above if Excel wants to vary an existing claim then I understand from the above that they will have to apply and pay £255.00 to amend the claim? 

Or they wait for it to be struck out and then issue fresh proceedings. 

It would seem as if Excel or Elms need to go to specsavers as this is not the only error on a claim. 

Ed2022

@Johnersh and @Snakes_Belly exactly
today had the reply saying its been assigned to the local county court and hopefully some progress then on the case

Snakes_Belly

Ed2022 said:

@Johnersh and @Snakes_Belly exactly
today had the reply saying its been assigned to the local county court and hopefully some progress then on the case

Excel lost a Lichfield case at Nuneaton last week.

Not sure of what the judge said as the hearings were running late and it sounds as if he read the paperwork over his lunch and came back and gave his decision. No appeal allowed.

They seem to be losing these cases but the sad part is that many have already paid up. I cannot believe how they can sleep at night after ripping people off like this including BB holders. I just cannot comprehend their mindset and how they can think that this is OK.