CEL letter before action help (I now have a court claim form??)

Gr1pr

No, but you need to email a copy to the Claimants lawyers too, or the claimant themselves if they didn't use any lawyers 

DisabledandConfused

Gr1pr said:

No, but you need to email a copy to the Claimants lawyers too, or the claimant themselves if they didn't use any lawyers 

I did send them a copy as well via email.

Coupon-mad

DisabledandConfused said:

There was, I had the most unfortunate situation that I confused the deadline with a different one for submitting legal paperwork (also facing court for my PIP claim not going through). It was supposed to be yesterday and I submitted it to the court today with an apology for the delay in the hope they still take it. I have so much going on that I genuinely forgot but luckily I had typed it all up already. Have I totally shot myself in the foot?

It will be fine.

What did you put?

What exhibits?

What costs are you claiming? Taking a day off work?

DisabledandConfused

Witness statement

35. I am XXXX and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The

facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based

upon my own knowledge.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

36. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court 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.

37. 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

Practice Direction Part 16. 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, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

(See Exhibit A)

38. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge

Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon)

and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit

39. Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting

at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a

full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit C)

40. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson

also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity,

detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors

confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a

number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit D)

41. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have

been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly

breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement

has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was

purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the Defendant, at a distinct

disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a

clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

Facts and Sequence of events

42. It is admitted that on the material dates, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle

 xxxxx

43. Due to length of time between the alleged incident and now it is difficult to remember

the details. I visited the location on the date of 6th of November 2023 after appealing was

unsuccessful and took the picture shown in Exhibit D. The sign is clearly unlit and

features incredibly small writing that is hard to see from a reduced height considering it

was a handicap bay and is on an unlit lightpost. During the time of the alleged

contravention, it would have been very dark considering it was November and it is

extremely easy to miss. (See Exhibit E)

36. The hotel claims on its website to provide free parking to all visitors of the hotel

which the I was at the time of the alleged contravention.

Conclusion

37. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that

these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. The July

2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than

the sum claimed for it. The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing.

The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that poorly pleaded claims like this

should be struck out.

38. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to

CPR 46.5.

39. Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late

Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the

Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims

allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states

(annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in

a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it

might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably

(r.27.14(2)(dg))."

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for

contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a

false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in

its truth.

DisabledandConfused

I currently dont work and I make no money I get just over 300 pounds in benefits at the moment. They did however make a bit of an error. In their paperwork they stated that I never asked them to elaborate on the particulars of the claim and if I had wanted it I should have asked. When I asked them via email as recomended here for the PAP about it alongside my contact info, they never responded but that counts as asking does it not?

Coupon-mad

Yes, it does.

But concentrate on your main defence points for the hearing.  And if you see the Judge isn't onside, move onto damage limitation mode and be really clear when arguing why it is unjustified and disproportionate for them to have added 'damages' that were never incurred. 

DisabledandConfused

Here is their defence for the amounts. They also quoted para 19.9 but the up to date version shows paragraph 19.9 as a section about why signage must be visible without leaving the car for disabled people. 
They actually quoted something that aids my case by accident and not the bit they had meant too. They have included pictures of the car park that show tiny little signs with no lights by the disabled bays

Le_Kirk

DisabledandConfused said:

Witness statement

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for

Shame you put this but too late to change it now and I doubt the judge will make anything of it.

DisabledandConfused

Oh what's wrong with that statement?

Le_Kirk

It was a witness statement and you said the facts in the defence are true!  As I wrote, too late to do anything about it but probably won't phase the judge.