HELP: Parallel Parking Court Claim

Coupon-mad

I think this is what causes confusion:

"4. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXREG2, however, it is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the dates relating to the PCNs."

'Dates' and 'PCNs' (plural) is wrong in the context of your denial of driving this car. Surely you mean 'the date relating to this PCN and vehicle'.

B789

Can you show us the the PoC? You haven't actually stated how they have worded the claim which may have a bearing on how you word part of your Defence.

I'm not sure how they can issue one claim for different breaches of contract by two separate people unless they are just pursuing you as the RK of both vehicles.

GolfR12

Please see PoC attached. Apologies it's not very clear 

GolfR12

Coupon-mad said:

I think this is what causes confusion:

"4. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXREG2, however, it is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the dates relating to the PCNs."

'Dates' and 'PCNs' (plural) is wrong in the context of your denial of driving this car. Surely you mean 'the date relating to this PCN and vehicle'.

Hi, in the PoC they have listed two vehicle registration numbers over two dates. Hope this makes a bit more sense?

GolfR12

B789 said:

Can you show us the the PoC? You haven't actually stated how they have worded the claim which may have a bearing on how you word part of your Defence.

I'm not sure how they can issue one claim for different breaches of contract by two separate people unless they are just pursuing you as the RK of both vehicles.

Apologies, I should have been clearer. Please see PoC above. I think that's what they are doing, pursuing the RK of both vehicles. 

Just a reminder, this is a claim that I dealing with on behalf of my FiL as stated at the beginning of my thread. 

B789

OK. So they are only pursuing the driver of the vehicles. Has the driver been identified? The claim is against the RK. If they don't know who the driver is, and the RK is under no obligation to identify who was driving, then it should fail.

Coupon-mad

This is an unnecessary rabbit hole, IMHO. That draft defence is perfectly OK, except the OP only needs to correct what I advised them to correct (remove the plurals and use my phrase instead).

Then FIL signs, dates & emails it as explained in the Template Defence thread.

B789

With those PoC, the defence should include the extra paragraphs:

5. 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”.
 
6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.

7. 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. 

8. 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

9. 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.'" 

10. 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. 

11. 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. 

GolfR12

B789 said:

OK. So they are only pursuing the driver of the vehicles. Has the driver been identified? The claim is against the RK. If they don't know who the driver is, and the RK is under no obligation to identify who was driving, then it should fail.

The PoC initially states 'driver of vehicles with registration...' and then further down states 'The Claimant claims the unpaid PCNs from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicles'

FiL was the driver of one. Believe MiL would have the driver of the other. As previously mentioned, they do not recall receiving any pre-claim correspondence

Coupon-mad

Yep.  Which is why he needs my version.