DCB Legal Letter of Claim - UKPC

B789

preloved1416 said:

I did not realise I needed to file a defence to a letter of claim. I deeply regret it.

You don't have to file a defence to a LoC. You HAVE to file a defence to the actual claim (N1).

KeithP

preloved1416 said:

I did not realise I needed to file a defence to a letter of claim. I deeply regret it.

You are right - you don't file a Defence against a Letter of Claim.

How many County Court Claims do you have?
I fear there is some confusion here.

preloved1416

Yes 20 days ago 

preloved1416

Which I acknowledged so I am confused by the judgement has been made by default when I should have 28 days to file a defence 

B789

I think everyone is getting confused as you are not making yourself very clear.

"Yes 20 days ago"????
"Which I acknowledged so I am confused by the judgement has been made by default when I should have 28 days to file a defence "????

What did you acknowledge? An LoC or an ACTUAL claim?

You need to sketch out a timeline with EVERYTHING you have received and responded to since this whole saga started.

preloved1416

1. I, XXXXX of XXXXX , am the Defendant in this matter, and will say as follows

2.  I ask that my costs be paid by the claimant as specified by CPR Practice Direction 38.6 “(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.”

3. I ask the court to consider the extremely late discontinuance as 'unreasonable behaviour' and to determine that a punitive award should be made against the claimant. 

4. As a litigant-in-person I have had to spend considerable time researching the law online, attempting to correctly interpret the legal terminology, preparing my defence and preparing my witness statement. On top of this, due to the threatening and harassing language of the Claimant’s automated letter chain (behaviour akin to that acknowledged by Lord Hunt of Wirral – “Highly undesirable practices in the private parking industry range from threatening letters sent to motorists, poor signage in car parks and aggressive debt collection practices”.) I have had to endure the emotional strain of regularly reassuring my partner of our safety and of the integrity of our credit records.

5. I first draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the Claimant was aware that there was no signage at the entrance to the parking area and no signage visible from my vehicle, and that any terms or conditions of parking outlined on any elsewhere-placed signage could not be binding. Such matters, forming a significant part of the Claimant’s business, can be reasonably considered to be within the Claimant’s expertise, and the Claimant could have avoided this claim.

6. Secondly, given the specificity of the conclusions of Judges Jackson and Hickinbottom, and their direct relevance to this Claim, the Claimant’s business model and that of the Claimant’s legal representation, pursuit of the inflated sum including double recovery in full knowledge of such conclusions is clearly vexatious.

7. Finally, Given the BPA investigation in 2020, and the decision that the claimant could no longer tell keepers they are liable in law at Stanmer Park, it can be reasonably considered to be within the Claimant’s knowledge, and the Claimant could have avoided this claim.

B789

preloved1416 said:

1. I, XXXXX of XXXXX , am the Defendant in this matter, and will say as follows

2.  I ask that my costs be paid by the claimant as specified by CPR Practice Direction 38.6 “(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.”

3. I ask the court to consider the extremely late discontinuance as 'unreasonable behaviour' and to determine that a punitive award should be made against the claimant. 

4. As a litigant-in-person I have had to spend considerable time researching the law online, attempting to correctly interpret the legal terminology, preparing my defence and preparing my witness statement. On top of this, due to the threatening and harassing language of the Claimant’s automated letter chain (behaviour akin to that acknowledged by Lord Hunt of Wirral – “Highly undesirable practices in the private parking industry range from threatening letters sent to motorists, poor signage in car parks and aggressive debt collection practices”.) I have had to endure the emotional strain of regularly reassuring my partner of our safety and of the integrity of our credit records.

5. I first draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the Claimant was aware that there was no signage at the entrance to the parking area and no signage visible from my vehicle, and that any terms or conditions of parking outlined on any elsewhere-placed signage could not be binding. Such matters, forming a significant part of the Claimant’s business, can be reasonably considered to be within the Claimant’s expertise, and the Claimant could have avoided this claim.

6. Secondly, given the specificity of the conclusions of Judges Jackson and Hickinbottom, and their direct relevance to this Claim, the Claimant’s business model and that of the Claimant’s legal representation, pursuit of the inflated sum including double recovery in full knowledge of such conclusions is clearly vexatious.

7. Finally, Given the BPA investigation in 2020, and the decision that the claimant could no longer tell keepers they are liable in law at Stanmer Park, it can be reasonably considered to be within the Claimant’s knowledge, and the Claimant could have avoided this claim.

What is that? What did you do with that?

Have you even read, re-read and read again the Newbies thread? Where on earth did the above come from if it is supposed to be a defence/WS to a claim?

Trainerman

B789 said:

preloved1416 said:

1. I, XXXXX of XXXXX , am the Defendant in this matter, and will say as follows

2.  I ask that my costs be paid by the claimant as specified by CPR Practice Direction 38.6 “(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.”

3. I ask the court to consider the extremely late discontinuance as 'unreasonable behaviour' and to determine that a punitive award should be made against the claimant. 

4. As a litigant-in-person I have had to spend considerable time researching the law online, attempting to correctly interpret the legal terminology, preparing my defence and preparing my witness statement. On top of this, due to the threatening and harassing language of the Claimant’s automated letter chain (behaviour akin to that acknowledged by Lord Hunt of Wirral – “Highly undesirable practices in the private parking industry range from threatening letters sent to motorists, poor signage in car parks and aggressive debt collection practices”.) I have had to endure the emotional strain of regularly reassuring my partner of our safety and of the integrity of our credit records.

5. I first draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the Claimant was aware that there was no signage at the entrance to the parking area and no signage visible from my vehicle, and that any terms or conditions of parking outlined on any elsewhere-placed signage could not be binding. Such matters, forming a significant part of the Claimant’s business, can be reasonably considered to be within the Claimant’s expertise, and the Claimant could have avoided this claim.

6. Secondly, given the specificity of the conclusions of Judges Jackson and Hickinbottom, and their direct relevance to this Claim, the Claimant’s business model and that of the Claimant’s legal representation, pursuit of the inflated sum including double recovery in full knowledge of such conclusions is clearly vexatious.

7. Finally, Given the BPA investigation in 2020, and the decision that the claimant could no longer tell keepers they are liable in law at Stanmer Park, it can be reasonably considered to be within the Claimant’s knowledge, and the Claimant could have avoided this claim.

What is that? What did you do with that?

Have you even read, re-read and read again the Newbies thread? Where on earth did the above come from if it is supposed to be a defence/WS to a claim?

AND we still need that timeline to make sense out of this

preloved1416

Nothing, it was from a thread I read on here 

B789

B789 said:

You need to sketch out a timeline with EVERYTHING you have received and responded to since this whole saga started.

@preloved1416 Don't try and obfuscate dates. We need to see them in order to try and untangle this mess.