Witness statement stage court 4th July HELP re: decision to appeal full/partial EURO Car parks fine

Coupon-mad

As this is a QDR claim I think they will serve detailed POC next week.  So put your defence on hold until nearer the defence deadline.

Bellatrix42

For further POC is it 14 days from the date on the current claim form? Or is it received within 14 days? 

Coupon-mad

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part07

Particulars of claim

7.4

(1) Particulars of claim must –

(a) be contained in or served with the claim form; or

(b) subject to paragraph (2) be served on the defendant by the claimant within 14 days after service of the claim form.

(2) Particulars of claim must be served on the defendant no later than the latest time for serving a claim form.

(Rule 7.5 sets out the latest time for serving a claim form)

Johnersh

The particulars (such as they are) appear to be marked 'detailed particulars to follow.' That suggests they ticked the box on mcol.

If it were me i'd wait. I certainly wouldn't proffer in defence any assumptions about time or location which aren't pleaded.

1. They can't obtain judgment where PoC are to follow
2. The PoC on that form don't contain any identifiable breach or even location for the contract so would fail CPR 16 in isolation.

The PoC must be sent within 14 days from the date of issue appearing on the claim form (not the date of service or receipt by the o/p) and they must file a certificate of service. 

There is no requirement to acknowledge until PoC are served - CPR 10.3(1)(a)

Bellatrix42

So @Coupon-mad I received further POC in the post this morning. See below. Obviously I’ll need to tweak my defence statement now…any tips? 

TQ 

Bellatrix42

The photos have uploaded in  The wrong order but hopefully you get the gist 

Bellatrix42

My thoughts……
the schedule 1 information is still totally inadequate and lacks details!
just gives a date and 1 time point……..does not state how long my vehicle was there for or that I’d already purchased a ticket for 30mins parking…..do you think this is enough to focus on? 

Not_A_Hope

I agree that the Particulars remain poor but by stating ‘the PDPermit did not cover date and time of parking’ may allow them to refer back to any evidence in the original Notice to Keeper. What evidence is on that? ANPR timestamped photos?

If so they have probably provided enough info that the Chan case would not apply and they would introduce those photos as evidence. See what others think.

However as previously advised you should mention what you were doing there and state clearly that you are a nurse and remember helping an old lady in an emergency on that date. You can then also refer in your WS to the case law of Jopson v Homeguard where your emergency assistance would be classified as a ‘small vicissitude’. 

Coupon-mad

Not_A_Hope said:

I agree that the Particulars remain poor but by stating ‘the PDPermit did not cover date and time of parking’ may allow them to refer back to any evidence in the original Notice to Keeper. What evidence is on that? ANPR timestamped photos?

If so they have probably provided enough info that the Chan case would not apply and they would introduce those photos as evidence. See what others think.

However as previously advised you should mention what you were doing there and state clearly that you are a nurse and remember helping an old lady in an emergency on that date. You can then also refer in your WS to the case law of Jopson v Homeguard where your emergency assistance would be classified as a ‘small vicissitude’. 

I agree with the above.

See what @Johnersh or @troublemaker22 think (they are solicitor posters) but I find it odd (and worthy of challenge in the defence) that paragraph 6 argues that both the PCN and the added costs are due to 'loss' which is not how Beavis was argued.

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

  

I agree with the above.

See what @Johnersh or @troublemaker22 think (they are solicitor posters) but I find it odd (and worthy of challenge in the defence) that paragraph 6 argues that both the PCN and the added costs are due to 'loss' which is not how Beavis was argued.

Paragraph 8 specifically refers to "The Claimant's claim is for damages".