PCM Claim Form time to write a defence

KeithP

Johnson2015 said:

So as promised. Here we are again. Claim Form received 19th Jan.  

You say the Claim Form was received on 19th January, but what is the Issue Date on it?

Johnson2015

Sorry my bad... It says 19th Jan (issue date) 

KeithP

KeithP said:

Johnson2015 said:

So as promised. Here we are again. Claim Form received 19th Jan.  

You say the Claim Form was received on 19th January, but what is the Issue Date on it?

Johnson2015 said:

Sorry my bad... It says 19th Jan (issue date) 

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th January, you have until Wednesday 7th February to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 21st February 2024 to file your Defence.

That's almost four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Johnson2015

AoS done. I've given them the correct address also. The one on the claim form was wrong. I will supply further info in the coming days in support of the Defence. As the owner of the vehicle was not the driver.

Coupon-mad

Johnson2015 said:

AoS done. I've given them the correct address also. The one on the claim form was wrong. I will supply further info in the coming days in support of the Defence. As the owner of the vehicle was not the driver.

That's not enough to alert the court service and the Claimant's legal reps to an address change.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6500828/minster-baywatch-claim-form-received/p5

Same as I just advised that person.

Anyway show us your draft 'facts' additional paragraph(s) you intend to add to the Template Defence (without showing us the whole template, obviously, please no!).

Johnson2015

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, and was not the driver at the time.

3. The vehicle registration XXXXXXXX was parked at XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The vehicle was parked up while visiting family members at XXXXXXXXX.  Unfortunately,  the Defendant did not receive any letters regarding this claim.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

4. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

5. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

FYI I have used the latest template defence and amended the paragraph numbering 6 to 32.

However, I would like to add a paragraph about forbidding signage. Relevant to this case I believe. Is there been any updates recently on forbidding signage,particularly cases which have won recently on similar grounds.

Also, sorry that the defence is sparse but it was a long time ago, both tickets issued on same vehicle and same street. POC has no details either.

Coupon-mad

The order of paragraphs needs to be the same as seen in the defence by hharry100.

Unfortunately,  the Defendant did not receive any letters regarding this claim.

Yes you did. The 'claim' is the claim form.

Le_Kirk

Johnson2015 said:

However, I would like to add a paragraph about forbidding signage. Relevant to this case I believe. Is there been any updates recently on forbidding signage,particularly cases which have won recently on similar grounds.

You are using the @hharry100 defence meaning that the POC are sparse, therefore you don't know why the PPC are chasing you; why would you want to mention something that might give the claimant a way in?

Johnson2015

Thanks for the feedback. Will amend and send tomorrow. Time is of the essence unfortunately.

Coupon-mad

Have you got the right paragraphs now?