(VICTORY) UKPC - Driver left site - County Court stage

Keizer1337

Keizer1337 said:

Keizer1337 said:

Coupon-mad said:

You haven't yet added the extra section I advised you to search, find & copy.

Im still working on this, Im struggling with the number of hits I find but will work through!

Adding this and then followed by the rest of the template Coupon-mad!

• The Particulars of Claim ('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”.

• The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.  The Defendant has had to guess the term the Claimant alleges was breached; in a free retail car park, this could be an alleged overstay, parking out of a bay, failure to validate the VRM at the till or alleged failure of a purported obligation to display a Blue Badge.  The POC fails to elucidate.  Based on some blurred photographs provided in their SAR reply, the Claimant has shown a photo of the car in an accessible bay, cropped images of parts of the dashboard and an illegible sign where the only readable term is '3 hours max stay'.  Other terms on the sign are impossible to read and do not assist in shedding light on the incoherent POC.
• 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 contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 
  
• 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 pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3
• 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.'"
• 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.
• 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 respectfully invited to strike this claim out.

I believe this defence rewrite is more to the point of the crappy POC (I put this all under one section numbered as 4 but I've seen elsewhere on the forum that people note each paragraph as another number, to me it reads as one section?):

1 . The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. It is the Defendant’s understanding that parking is free for all visitors of the complex for up to three hours, and there are no Pay and Display machines surrounding the parking bays. It has been nearly six years since the alleged breach of terms and the defendant is unable to recall the exact details of the day or even who was driving the family car. The Defendant was shocked to have received notice of a P.C.N due to the car park not being chargeable.

4. The Particulars of Claim ('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”.

The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.  The Defendant has had to guess the term the Claimant alleges was breached; in a free retail car park, this could be an alleged overstay, parking out of a bay.  The POC fails to elucidate.  Based on poor quality photographs provided in their SAR reply, the Claimant has shown photo’s of the car parked correctly inside a bay and an image where the only readable term is '3 hours max stay'.  Other terms on the sign are impossible to read and do not assist in shedding light on the incoherent POC.

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 contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum.

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 pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3

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.'"

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.

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 respectfully invited to strike this claim out.

Coupon-mad

All good but add numbers for every single paragraph, and re-number the template below it.

Keizer1337

This is now all done and sent off to the ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk email address and DCB legal in CC. Hopefully they will discontinue shortly after! 
Many thanks for your help so far, its unbelievable this scam exists and causes so much stress and wasted government time. Will keep you updated on the outcome.
and receipt received:
Thank you for emailing the County Court Business Centre, please accept this as a receipt of your email.  Where a response is required we will endeavour to respond to your email within 10 working days (please do not re-send duplicate messages)

Keizer1337

Just wondering, we have received in the post a confirmation receipt of our defence document and that is dated March 1st but there has been complete radio silence since. In the thread about how to fill in the DQ form it says to contact the CCBC but I just seem to get stuck in an infinite loop of waiting music. Is the best course of action to download the form from here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1079639/N180_Final_Form.pdf
and email it?
In addition to this question, this form as linked in the newbies thread has a new question which isnt answered in the template from Bargepole, any idea what this should be?

Grizebeck

Download it and send via email , when you hear back from courts, or about a week after you hear from DCB LTD confirming they are proceeding.  
You have no reason to ring the courts

Keizer1337

Hmm, I havent heard anything from DCB legal does that mean they arent proceeding?

Grizebeck

Keizer1337 said:

Hmm, I havent heard anything from DCB legal does that mean they arent proceeding?

no it just means these things time, theres no rush and you get on with your life in the meantime

B789

Keizer1337 said:

Just wondering, we have received in the post a confirmation receipt of our defence document and that is dated March 1st but there has been complete radio silence since. In the thread about how to fill in the DQ form it says to contact the CCBC but I just seem to get stuck in an infinite loop of waiting music. Is the best course of action to download the form from here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1079639/N180_Final_Form.pdf
and email it?
In addition to this question, this form as linked in the newbies thread has a new question which isnt answered in the template from Bargepole, any idea what this should be?

You tick "No" and put the following into the box:

I am not content for the case to be heard 'on the papers' because that seems to disproportionately give an advantage to a legally represented party. I feel strongly after all these years of intimidating demands from this aggressive parking firm and its agents, that I need a voice at an attended hearing.  

I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions. 

Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.

Keizer1337

Just to keep this thread updated. I have now finally received a DQ request from the courts. Will proceed as indicated and submit the DQ as highlighted here: 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71763411#Comment_71763411

I guess the idea behind this scam is that people will forget a step or miss a date and then suddenly are on the hook for the full amount? 

KeithP

And in answer to your next question...

This thread - New Questions on the N180 Form - should help.