SAR Request - No NTK UKPCC

Oakley2702

Okay, here's what I've got so far:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3. The defendant arrived at 6:00pm at the gym and parked the vehicle in a parking bay which, at the time, the defendant believed to belong to Pure gym.  Two gyms use the same parking yard but it simply isn't clear where to park for each and customers of both gyms are being penalised unfairly.  There is no barrier, fence or prominent delineation.  Later research proved that the parking bay marking was misleading as there are yellow hearts painted on the floor, which were very faded and which were not very visible at 6:00pm as it was dark by this point.

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”.

5.  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 car park, this could be an alleged overstay, parking out of a bay or failure to validate the VRM in the gym.  The POC fails to elucidate.  Based on some blurred photographs provided in their SAR reply, the Claimant has shown a photo of the car parked in a bay, cropped images of parts of the dashboard and an illegible sign where the only readable term is 'Members parking only'.  Other terms on the sign are impossible to read and do not assist in shedding light on the incoherent POC.

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

7. 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 

8. 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.'" 

9. 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. 

10. 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. 

Thank you.

Not_A_Hope

You might make it clear that the defendant was a member of the gym and therefore understood they had the right to use the car park.

Are you going to add the rest of the template?

Oakley2702

Not_A_Hope said:

You might make it clear that the defendant was a member of the gym and therefore understood they had the right to use the car park.

Are you going to add the rest of the template?

Sorry, are you saying that I shouldn't say that? They were a member at puregym but it's xercise4less who use UKPCC. 

I've not attached the rest of the template here as I've seen it's not needed because it's already known what's written there, apologies if I've misunderstood. 

Not_A_Hope

Your defence looks good to me. I was suggesting you make it clear the defendant was a bone fide gym member who believed they were allowed to park where they did rather than some random motorist who rocked up and made use of the car park. 

The lack of signage and unclear markings will be the PPCs undoing if it goes to court. Even if the ‘yellow hearts’ were clear and obvious how would anyone know what they meant.

It is not necessary to show the rest of the template but it is useful to make it clear you are going to use it including the necessary statement of truth. A surprising number of people think it doesn’t apply to their case and leave some or all of it out.

Oakley2702

Not_A_Hope said:

Your defence looks good to me. I was suggesting you make it clear the defendant was a bone fide gym member who believed they were allowed to park where they did rather than some random motorist who rocked up and made use of the car park. 

The lack of signage and unclear markings will be the PPCs undoing if it goes to court. Even if the ‘yellow hearts’ were clear and obvious how would anyone know what they meant.

It is not necessary to show the rest of the template but it is useful to make it clear you are going to use it including the necessary statement of truth. A surprising number of people think it doesn’t apply to their case and leave some or all of it out.

Ah, got you, that's great. Will bolster that up and repost before I submit. 

Thank you for your help. 

Coupon-mad

Looks like a strong defence.

Oakley2702

Just as an update to this, over a month ago my friend received the letter stating that it was going to proceed to court and that they would receive the copy of the N180 but this hasn't arrived and there's been no other correspondence, should they chase this up and if so, how?

Thanks

Le_Kirk

Your friend should check the MCOL status to see when/if the N180 has been issued.  CCBC are well behind in their admin.

KeithP

Oakley2702 said:

Just as an update to this, over a month ago my friend received the letter stating that it was going to proceed to court and that they would receive the copy of the N180 but this hasn't arrived and there's been no other correspondence, should they chase this up and if so, how?

Thanks

You mention 'the letter'.
Who sent 'the letter'?
Tell us more about 'the letter'.
Does 'the letter' perhaps match that described in paragraph 7 of that checklist your friend was following when he filed a Defence?

Oakley2702

KeithP said:

Oakley2702 said:

Just as an update to this, over a month ago my friend received the letter stating that it was going to proceed to court and that they would receive the copy of the N180 but this hasn't arrived and there's been no other correspondence, should they chase this up and if so, how?

Thanks

You mention 'the letter'.
Who sent 'the letter'?
Tell us more about 'the letter'.
Does 'the letter' perhaps match that described in paragraph 7 of that checklist your friend was following when he filed a Defence?

Apologies for being so vague, I didn't have the details to hand but I do now. 

DCB Legal sent a letter dated 17th April that the client wishes to proceed with the claim, offering a final chance to settle and that the court would send the DQ documents in due course. 

I don't have the MCOL details to hand to check on the status but now I know that's possible I will do so later. 

Thanks