Court claim from CEL

Coupon-mad

Just change 6 to:

If there were any contractual parking signs mentioning £100 risk, they were certainly not prominent inside or outside the surgery, and the Defendant did not agree to any such terms. 

LDast

Much better. I would suggest an itsy change to @Coupon-mad's amendment:

Coupon-mad said:

If there were any contractual parking signs mentioning £100 risk, they were certainly not prominent inside or outside the surgery, and therefore failed to adequately bring it to the notice of the driver and the Defendant did not agree to any such terms. 

halfbee

So I'm thinking that this is my final draft thanks to all the incredible help from the forum members.  I'm posting it again to maybe help people that come behind me.



Para 1

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

para 2,3

imbedded images

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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

5. The defendant was attending his preliminary appointment at his new General Practitioners surgery. He was understandably nervous about the upcoming medical examination and was concerned with finding the reception desk to book in for his appointment.

6. If there were any contractual parking signs mentioning £100 risk, they were certainly not prominent inside or outside the surgery, and therefore failed to adequately bring it to the notice of the driver and the Defendant did not agree to any such terms.

7.  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 would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

para 8 to 34 as per template.

Coupon-mad

Yes v good but remove the bold/italics.

halfbee

11th Sept I received a court date in early December and then on 23rd September I received a without prejudice offer from CEL of £100 parking charge + £35 court fee.  Time to start writing a witness statement and gathering the other evidence laid out in the Newbie post I guess.

Coupon-mad

halfbee said:

11th Sept I received a court date in early December and then on 23rd September I received a without prejudice offer from CEL of £100 parking charge + £35 court fee.  Time to start writing a witness statement and gathering the other evidence laid out in the Newbie post I guess.

Yep.

Look at the ones by these posters which are recent and good (one already discontinued):

@Milliered

@Defendant911

halfbee

I really need to crack on and start my WS. I've read both examples above and I think @defendant911 suits best.  Before I start I've noticed that the Claimant has until tomorrow 16:00 08/11/24 to pay the court fee.  Is there anyway of finding out whether they've paid?  I've tried calling the court (diverts to a national call centre) and after waiting 12 minutes I am caller 92 in the cue...

Coupon-mad

If your WS deadline isn't until next week or later, wait until next week then call the hearing court at 8.30am or 9am.

halfbee

The fee has been paid so I've written my first draft witness statement.  I would be very grateful if you good people could critique it for me.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gnXGylJnArN9p6dLHDS428Vz55j9F6um/view?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

Typo in para 3 'he' should be 'the'.

Typo, para 10 'anti room' should be 'ante-room'.

Your judgments link is strangely messed up.  You haven't got all 4 pages of Chan.
It also seems to miss the cover page of Akande so it isn't clear which case the HHJ Evans decision is about.

@Le_Kirk I'm pretty sure the one the OP has used can't be the most recent one?