Minster Baywatch Claim Form Received

Coupon-mad

Zach20161 said:

Great thank you, all amended. I will look to submit tomorrow! Does the length not concern you at all? I worry that a judge may overlook crucial points if it's 13 pages for a parking ticket!

It works. No worries.  As long as you added some facts...?

I didn't see any facts/defence added after the Chan images... please confirm that you did.  What's your defence?

DO NOT USE MCOL FOR THE DEFENCE.

Email it exactly as coached in the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.  Which also tells you about the first expected letters and forms this spring.  Please don't post about those first letters!

YOU MUST NOW SEPARATELY EMAIL THE CNBC AND THE SOLICITORS FOR THE CLAIMANT TO TELL THEM TO ERASE THE WRONG ADDRESS AND NOTE THE RIGHT ADDRESS FOR SERVICE.

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO BURY THAT INFO IN THE AOS & THE CLAIMANT HASN'T SEEN THAT ANYWAY.

See you at Witness Statement stage this Summer.

troublemaker22

@Coupon-mad knows her stuff, so I don't normally contradict her advice.  But the Chan decision has changed the landscape and there's room for more than one legitimate approach in the post Chan world.  My own approach is not to offer much in the way of factual statements where the particulars of claim are as vague as this one.

I haven't combed through all the pages of this thread to find out whether it's been established that the PCN is POFA-compliant. If it's not been established that the PCN is POFA-compliant, I would just say:

The particulars of claim are woefully inadequate as regards the conduct that constituted the alleged breach. Accordingly,  while the Defendant admits to being the keeper of the vehicle, the Defendant does not admit any of the other facts and circumstances alleged in the particulars of claim, as to which the Claimant is put to strict proof. 

And I would go on to cite VCS v Edward on the question of the Claimant's burden of proof as to the driver's identity in the same way as citing Chan on the defective particulars point. If, however, it's certain that the PCN is POFA-compliant, then there's no harm in going into more detail as to what happened on the day. 

However, others may legitimately disagree.  

I think you said that your filing deadline is 9 February.  If that's right, I see no point in rushing to file today.  Take the time to get it right.

troublemaker22

Actually you said at the start that the claim issue date was 19 January.  If that’s correct you’ve got masses of time to get this right and no need to rush it in half-baked today. Depending on when you filed your AOS you could have up to 21 February - but say 15 February to be safe. 

Zach20161

Coupon-mad said:

YOU MUST NOW SEPARATELY EMAIL THE CNBC AND THE SOLICITORS FOR THE CLAIMANT TO TELL THEM TO ERASE THE WRONG ADDRESS AND NOTE THE RIGHT ADDRESS FOR SERVICE.

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO BURY THAT INFO IN THE AOS & THE CLAIMANT HASN'T SEEN THAT ANYWAY.

After submitting my AoS I did let the claimant know, who referred me to the solicitors who I already let know. I will let the CNBC know asap.

Also, after the Chan paragraphs, my defence reads:

The facts known to the Defendant:

10. 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 driver.

11. On the date in question, the Defendant had a legitimate appointment at York Ultraflex Gym, Layerthorpe. This appointment necessitated on-site parking, which is a facility presumably provided for the convenience of gym users and visitors. The gym’s website advertises 'free parking' for this site. This advertisement does not explicitly state or delineate the terms and conditions set by Minster Baywatch. The Defendant relied on this representation and was not aware of any additional terms concerning parking. The Defendant contends that the signage pertaining to parking regulations, especially those set by Minster Baywatch, is not sufficiently prominent or clear on the gym premises. The Defendant believed they were in full compliance with the terms of use for the parking facility. If there was a deviation from the standard parking procedures, it was unintentional and may be attributed to a lack of clear signage not helped by the poor weather visibility on that particular day. 

Zach20161

troublemaker22 said:

The particulars of claim are woefully inadequate as regards the conduct that constituted the alleged breach. Accordingly,  while the Defendant admits to being the keeper of the vehicle, the Defendant does not admit any of the other facts and circumstances alleged in the particulars of claim, as to which the Claimant is put to strict proof. 

Should this be going on paragraph 9 or it's own paragraph?

troublemaker22

I'd put it in place of the existing paragraph 10 just quoted and and bin the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot confession in the present paragraph 11 just quoted.  You can bring all that back in at the witness statement stage if it gets that far

Zach20161

Okay great, so it now looks like:

The facts known to the Defendant:

10. The particulars of claim are woefully inadequate as regards the conduct that constituted the alleged breach. Accordingly,  while the Defendant admits to being the keeper of the vehicle, the Defendant does not admit any of the other facts and circumstances alleged in the particulars of claim, as to which the Claimant is put to strict proof.  

11. 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 driver.

Please confirm this is how you meant.

troublemaker22

No. That's not what I recommended.  I suggested getting rid of what you now have numbered 11 and replacing it simply with what you now have numbered as 10.

 

Coupon-mad

And you need to mention the (likely) major issue with the contract on the signs and cite this Judgment from Norwich County Court:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6466822/minster-baywatch-bransby-wilson-parking-solutions/p1

Zach20161

Coupon-mad said:

And you need to mention the (likely) major issue with the contract on the signs and cite this Judgment from Norwich County Court:

Before I do that, would you like me to get clearer pictures of the terms set out on the signage? Having had zoomed in on the picture, I cannot see any other companies mentioned than Minster Baywatch LTD