Help needed with two claims froms

Le_Kirk

seaside_pillow said:

@Le_Kirk good point. But I have done this because I heard somewhere that PPCs and their solicitors are lurking around here. So trying to minimise that. Not sure if it is effective but just an extra precaution so they don't expect what the defence will be based on even before filing it.

Yes, but do you think they are incapable of interpreting %P%C%M% as PCM?  They will be sent a copy of your defence from CNBC and will have plenty of time to study it before making a decision whether to proceed or not.

seaside_pillow

@nopcns okay

Also just a reminder about the rules here.

"It's OK to disagree, but be civil, keep your tone friendly and don't be aggressive or make personal attacks on other members of the community. Before you post, think, 'could what I have written be read as unfriendly and upset someone?' and/or, 'how might this be perceived/make someone feel?'."

seaside_pillow

@Le_Kirk I meant when it comes to searching in the search bar. but cool won't be doing that anymore.

seaside_pillow

Below is another draft with some tweaking, please let me know what you think. Thank you.


8.0      The Defendant has another family member who resides in the same residential area mentioned in the claim(s) (Barking Riverside– IG11), and the drivers used the vehicle to visit the said family member.

 8.1       The Defendant was neither present nor a passenger during the instances leading to the alleged PCNs, and because they had not agreed to any ‘contract’ nor was there any consent from the Defendant to form or enter into any agreements with the Claimant beforehand. Concerns arise on whether these ‘contract(s)’ are legitimate or legally binding when the principle of consent, as outlined in the common law and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, is considered.

8.2       Since the Claimant has not provided any proof or evidence suggesting that the Defendant agreed to any of their alleged 'contract(s),' the burden of proof remains unmet. Thus, it is sensible to question the legitimacy of these contract(s).

9.0.      The Defendant adamantly refuse to agree to any of PCM UK's demands and invites the court to strike out these claim(s) due to the following reasons:

(i)         PCM-UK's Particulars of Claim(s) fails to outline the terms and conditions of the alleged ‘contract(s)’ or subsequentially provide any evidence about the identity of the driver during the alleged incidents as the vehicles have two authorised drivers. Hence, the Claimant's incoherent Particulars of Claim(s) violate CPR 16.4, warranting the dismissal of the claim(s).

 (ii)        The Claimant was previously involved in similar claims in which it was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being “incoherent”, failing to comply with CPR16.4 as mentioned earlier, and “providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law”.

(iii)        Given PCM-UK's history of questionable practices and ill-treatment towards motorists, which was exposed by BBC Watchdog previously, and their business model, which is characterized by extortionate practices and unfair charges. The Defendant views PCM-UK's claim(s) with scepticism due to their lack of integrity and deceit.

(iv)      The court should also consider on whether these alleged ‘contract(s)’ are legally binding on the grounds of misrepresentation when no agreement was in place between the Defendant and the Claimant.

Coupon-mad

I'd stop at integrity, removing:

"and deceit.

(iv)      The court should also consider on whether these alleged ‘contract(s)’ are legally binding on the grounds of misrepresentation when no agreement was in place between the Defendant and the Claimant."

seaside_pillow

@Coupon-mad , thank you for the feedback. I have now updated it as the following:

8.0      The Defendant has another family member who resides in the same residential area mentioned in the claim(s) (Barking Riverside– IG11), and the drivers used the vehicle to visit the said family member.

 8.1       The Defendant was neither present nor a passenger during the instances leading to the alleged PCNs, and because they had not agreed to any ‘contract’ nor was there any consent from the Defendant to form or enter into any agreements with the Claimant beforehand. Concerns arise on whether these ‘contract(s)’ are legitimate or legally binding when the principle of consent, as outlined in the common law and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, is considered.

8.2       Since the Claimant has not provided any proof or evidence suggesting that the Defendant agreed to any of their alleged 'contract(s),' the burden of proof remains unmet. Thus, it is sensible to question the legitimacy of these contract(s).

9.0.      The Defendant adamantly refuse to agree to any of PCM UK's demands and invites the court to strike out these claim(s) due to the following reasons:

(i)         PCM-UK's Particulars of Claim(s) fails to outline the terms and conditions of the alleged ‘contract(s)’ or subsequentially provide any evidence about the identity of the driver during the alleged incidents as the vehicles have two authorised drivers. Hence, the Claimant's incoherent Particulars of Claim(s) violate CPR 16.4, warranting the dismissal of the claim(s).

 (ii)        The Claimant was previously involved in similar claims in which it was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being “incoherent”, failing to comply with CPR16.4 as mentioned earlier, and “providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law”.

(iii)        Given PCM-UK's history of questionable practices and ill-treatment towards motorists, which was exposed by BBC Watchdog previously, and their business model, which is characterized by extortionate practices and unfair charges. The Defendant views PCM-UK's claim(s) with scepticism due to their lack of integrity.

seaside_pillow

Just to double check, since I have two different defences to files and the one where I have the "Cause of Action estoppel" and Henderson v Henderson mentioned.  What shall I include in the email body, I saw it somewhere but can't remember which thread that talked about this ?

nopcns

You don't need anything in the email body but it wouldn't hurt to put something along the lines of:

please find attached a PDF file with the defence for Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

You must include the claim number in the Subject field of the email.

seaside_pillow

@nopcns Thank you for the reply.

I understand not much info is needed in the email body for the first claim apart from what you mentioned above already.

So for the second claim which mentions the "Cause of Action estoppel" and Henderson v Henderson. I just do a similar thing as well. I was referring to this comment from another thread (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78629767/#Comment_78629767) which mentions adding the "cause of action ..." to the body as well. 

nopcns

I'm not sure what you mean. The email is just the electronic equivalent of the envelope with which you are delivering your defence to the court. What you put in the email that you are attaching your pdf defence to is irrelevant. All it needs is the claim number in the subject. You defence will be whatever you put in the pdf that you are attaching to the email.