Claim form from DCB Legal, help please - discontinue notice received!

B789

Preferably with DropBox or just post it here (suitably redacted) over more than one post if necessary.

jimbo2010

Coupon-mad said:

Copy & paste it here, across 2 or 3 replies.

Also you are going to need to urgently add a Supplementary WS attaching the New (persuasive) HHJ Murch judgment.

Read today's replies in the thread by @vincentvega27 to see what a good WS looks like which includes that new judgment.

Hi which WS statement do I use now, is it the one from vincentvega27 or the one from the newbies thread as they are very different

jimbo2010

I am getting a bit stressed as I thought i'd done it right but how do i write about the claimant's wording of  "Your vehicle was in breach of the terms and conditions which were clearly and prominently displayed on the signage and this was agreed by the driver when your vehicle was parked on private land"

Le_Kirk

Any exemplar that is recommended is just that, an example of what a good WS looks like and can be copied for format and style and include the latest judgments that help your case.  Of course, your WS must back up and support what you said in your defence.

Coupon-mad

jimbo2010 said:

I am getting a bit stressed as I thought i'd done it right but how do i write about the claimant's wording of  "Your vehicle was in breach of the terms and conditions which were clearly and prominently displayed on the signage and this was agreed by the driver when your vehicle was parked on private land"

You don't.

Show us your draft which takes the style of the WS by baz417 but simply adds the NEW STUFF seen in vincentvega's final version.

They're not that different.

jimbo2010

Coupon-mad said:

jimbo2010 said:

I am getting a bit stressed as I thought i'd done it right but how do i write about the claimant's wording of  "Your vehicle was in breach of the terms and conditions which were clearly and prominently displayed on the signage and this was agreed by the driver when your vehicle was parked on private land"

You don't.

Show us your draft which takes the style of the WS by baz417 but simply adds the NEW STUFF seen in vincentvega's final version.

They're not that different.

Hi, could you look at my WS please - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/if5j2w3vs8uo20ikbx0v4/WS-Draft.pdf?rlkey=ykhxlm6m13tu5srugt63rg18a&dl=0

Coupon-mad

I am not very keen on this bit, especially the words in my bold which almost reads like an admission:

The Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the PoC.

Use this wording instead, IMHO:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80314298/#Comment_80314298

But obviously don't copy things like "quantum of almost two thousand pounds" nor require them to "specify how many PCNs are pursued as there are only two dates" which are specific to that case!

Also that's a defence not a WS so you should change 'The Defendant' to "I" because a WS is your story in the first person.

Remove 'at allocation stage' from para 11 as you are past that stage. Good WS though!

jimbo2010

Coupon-mad said:

I am not very keen on this bit, especially the words in my bold which almost reads like an admission:

The Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the PoC.

Use this wording instead, IMHO:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80314298/#Comment_80314298

But obviously don't copy things like "quantum of almost two thousand pounds" nor require them to "specify how many PCNs are pursued as there are only two dates" which are specific to that case!

Also that's a defence not a WS so you should change 'The Defendant' to "I" because a WS is your story in the first person.

Remove 'at allocation stage' from para 11 as you are past that stage. Good WS though!

I've amended it to this - 

The Civil Enforcement VS Ming Tak Chan Judgment against this Claim

6. 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 POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise:

(a) the contractual term(s) relied upon.

and

(b) how the purported and unspecified extra 'monies relating to the parking charges' arose

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. I trust that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3. No such document has been served.

8. I draw 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.

9. 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 and the Practice direction to Part 16. On the 15th of 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, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 (See Exhibit 04).

Do I change all wording where it says defendant to I?

KeithP

jimbo2010 said:

Do I change all wording where it says defendant to I?

Yes.            

Coupon-mad

The Defendant is unable = I am unable

You won't need your paragraph 11 at all now as the above wording is better.

You are missing the word 'is' from that subtitle.