County Court Claim Form

B789

I have no legal training and will defer to others on here that are far more capable than I am, but how about this as a first part of a defence to the PoC as posted above:

1. The Particulars of Claim 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; or (c) the alleged loss

2. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the Particulars within the Claim Form, to understand properly and specifically what case is being pursued

3. The Particulars 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"

4. 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

5. In the opinion of the Defendant it ought to have been entirely possible to deal with the matters outlined above within that character limit but for the fact that generic wording appears to have been applied

6. In the event that it was or is impossible to properly set out the key parts of the claim within the character limit then it was incumbant upon the Claimant to file and serve separate Particulars of Claim within 14 days per 16PD.3

7. 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.'"

As no further particulars have been filed and it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a 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 REQUESTED THAT

1 The Claim is struck out.

jmfc

Thanks again everyone.

We will set the ball rolling tomorrow 

Coupon-mad

I will try & help her defend as best I can although the car park is clearly marked & signed so I'm not sure what the defence might be 

Where is this place with clear UKPC signage?

It is never enough to just "have some signs up" and we've never seen a legible and prominent UKPC sign.  Ever.

jmfc

Afternoon all

Since my last post, my daughter has revisited the car park and taken photos that show there is no signage at all on the entrance or exit of the car park and that the only sign within is placed on a lamp post approximately 8 to 10 feet from ground level.

Below is a draft of her defence (only the new paragraphs) and I would be grateful if someone could let me know if this is the sort of thing required please.  Also does the heading "the facts as known to the Defendant" stay in or get deleted?

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. 

 

3. During the timeframe involved, the Defendant was a first year student at the University Of Bedfordshire and on numerous occasions parked in what she believed to be a car park for general use on campus.

 

4. There were no visible signs on either entry or exit from the car park to suggest that there were any restrictions on parking nor were there any visible legible signs within the car park itself.

 

5.  Photographic evidence can be provided by the defendant to highlight the above points.

 

6.  No Parking Charge notices were found on my vehicle at any time and any letters which may have been sent to my home (parents) address would have been treated as junk mail and disposed of

Any help is very much appreciated

 

Coupon-mad

I'd remove the subheading in this case.       

And remove 5 and 6 as they are not needed.

(Just an aside - why throw letters away?  Post is important.  Surely not binned? I kept all post that arrived when my 4 were at uni, which two of them still are.  Or I asked them if they wanted me to open the post then messaged them a photo).


Anyway then add this:

5.  The Defendant received no PCNs (either on the vehicle or by post) and is unable, on the basis of the incoherent Particulars of Claim ('POC'), to understand properly and specifically what case is being pursued.  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”.

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 a relevant obligation or relevant contract; (c) the alleged loss or overriding legitimate interest supporting the inflated three figure sum claimed; and (d) the breakdown of how much each PCN was for and further, why and how alleged additional (unspecified) 'damages' are claimed, despite it being well known that debt demands are sent out on a no-win-no-fee basis in the parking industry, and that parking operator Claimants have therefore incurred no such fees or costs.

7.   The POC are embarrassing insofar as they fail to explain precisely what the contractual terms were and which specific term(s) were allegedly breached on each date.  The Defendant has been advised that the definition in Bullen & Leake & Jacob's Precedents of Pleadings is widely regarded as the essential guide to drafting statements of case and that an embarrassing pleading is “one which is ambiguous or unintelligible [...] which may involve expenses, trouble and delay and thus will prejudice the fair trial of the action...” 

8.  In this case, multiple 'PCNs' could well relate to different breach amounts and/or differing 'contravention codes' with each separate allegation requiring a response.  The Defendant is wholly disadvantaged if they are now forced to wait in limbo to learn of the precise allegations, dates and details until just two weeks before a hearing, when ambushed with this serial Claimant's generic template prolix Witness Statement.

9.   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 with more than one 'PCN' allegation spread across a period of a year, required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3

10.   In the event that it was or is impossible to properly set out the key parts of the claim within the character limit then it was incumbent upon the Claimant to file and serve separate Particulars of Claim. 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.'"

11.  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.

12.  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 invited to strike this claim out.

jmfc

Thanks again Coupon-mad!

I have made the necessary adjustments and renumbered all the following paragraphs ready for submission to the CCBC.  Before we do this, do the pages of the defence need numbering or is that only needed for the witness statement? 

jmfc

Scrap that last question, I have just seen from bargepoles post that the pages should indeed be numbered using the Times Roman 12pt font so I will adjust the document accordingly before it is emailed to the CCBC

1505grandad

Are you also applying the line spacing which I believe is also stated.

jmfc

I will do so yes 1505grandad, Thanks for the heads up.

jmfc

My daughter has received what appears to be a duplicate CCBC claim form (picture below).

The claim number, issue date and the POC are all identical to the original I posted at the start of this thread which seems rather strange?

I assume that this is an error on the part of the CCBC but wondered if there is any action we might need to take?