Court Claim Received from HX & Gladstones

Worzel_

Just received this claim today. I am pretty adamant I have not received a LBC from them.

They are claiming £60 "contractual costs" on top of the £100 PCN.

In any case I will fight to the bitter end.

I wil acknowledge in MCOL in next few days.

Worzel_

Have sent a SAR to HX.

Gr1pr

Worzel_ said:

Have sent a SAR to HX.

Shame, because you should have been structuring your defence based on the woeful particulars alternative defence template, so not sending the SAR 

Worzel_

Gr1pr said:

Worzel_ said:

Have sent a SAR to HX.

Shame, because you should have been structuring your defence based on the woeful particulars alternative defence template, so not sending the SAR 

ah... that's unfortunate.

Do you have a link to more info on that?

Gr1pr

Read the newbies FAQ sticky thread in announcements, plus the defence template thread in announcements, both written by coupon mad 

Coupon-mad

No need to read why not to send a SAR. You've done it now. If they ask for ID to provide the SAR, just let it slide.

The second post of the NEWBIES thread is what you need to read and there's no mention there about doing a SAR these days.

I removed it from the advice because the claims are so vague that IMHO it is best to defend 'blind' on that basis.

Worzel_

Coupon-mad said:

No need to read why not to send a SAR. You've done it now. If they ask for ID to provide the SAR, just let it slide.

The second post of the NEWBIES thread is what you need to read and there's no mention there about doing a SAR these days.

I removed it from the advice because the claims are so vague that IMHO it is best to defend 'blind' on that basis.

Thanks, I already provided ID but it is 9 months old. Hopefully they'll ask for updated one.

LDast

The claimants legal representative is obviously in dire need of re-education in the CPRs or is just plain, intellectually malnourished.

Five Preliminary Matters that can be used in the defence to get the allocation judge to strike out the claim.

1. No cause of action.
2. Breach of PoFA 4(5) in that £60 has been added to the principal sum that was on the original PCN.
3. Interest incorrectly calculated and then calculated on both the principal and the fake contractual costs.
4. No reference date for the issue of the PCN in order to calculate when it became due and thus interest cannot have been calculated correctly.
5. Signed with a mendacious statement of truth

Worzel_

LDast said:

The claimants legal representative is obviously in dire need of re-education in the CPRs or is just plain, intellectually malnourished.

Five Preliminary Matters that can be used in the defence to get the allocation judge to strike out the claim.

1. No cause of action.
2. Breach of PoFA 4(5) in that £60 has been added to the principal sum that was on the original PCN.
3. Interest incorrectly calculated and then calculated on both the principal and the fake contractual costs.
4. No reference date for the issue of the PCN in order to calculate when it became due and thus interest cannot have been calculated correctly.
5. Signed with a mendacious statement of truth

Sounds great, thanks for that input.

Coupon-mad

You'll be using the ALTERNATIVE defence linked in the 3rd paragraph of the Template Defence itself, and underneath the CEL v Chan images (as shown in the link) you can continue with paragraph 5 like this:


5. It is denied that the Claimant can pursue the registered keeper pursuant to the POFA 2012 because this Claimant's consumer notices are likely to fail to comply with Schedule 4 and the sum pursued exceeds the 'maximum sum' that Act sets.

5.1. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

5.2.  PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was presumably for £100 (as pleaded in the POC). However, the claimant's current claim is for £160. The Claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed.

5.3. The Defendant respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs - if incurred at the point of claim dismissal - to the Defendant.

5.4.  As the claim (fully disputed in any event) should only be for the amount of £100 as stated on the original PCN, the interest calculated should only be on that amount. By also calculating interest on the purported £60 "contractual" escalation fee (which is, in itself, an abuse of process and POFA breach) the Claimant has not only acted unreasonably but also abused the courts process and breached the following CPRs:

Further CPR Breaches over and above those covered by paragraphs 2-4 above:

• CPR 1.1 - The Overriding Objective:

• The claim is not being dealt with justly or proportionately. The excessive amount claimed puts the defendant at a disadvantage, increases unnecessary costs, and is disproportionate to the original charge.

• CPR 3.4 - Power to Strike Out:

• CPR 3.4(2)(a): The claim for £160 has no reasonable grounds, as it exceeds the lawful amount stipulated by PoFA 4(5).

• CPR 3.4(2)(b): The claim represents an abuse of the court’s process by attempting to claim an amount not legally recoverable, thus obstructing the just disposal of proceedings.

• CPR 27.14 - Costs on the Small Claims Track:

• CPR 27.14(2)(g): The claimant’s behaviour in pursuing an excessive and unlawful amount is unreasonable, warranting the claim to be struck out.

6.  To the best of the Defendant's knowledge it is denied that any breach of any (prominently advertised) term occurred due to any conduct of a driver of the vehicle, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of all aspects, facts and alleged liability. The POC is so sparse as to be incoherent; utterly failing to specify any alleged breach(es) despite the fact the Claimant has a PCN file and it would be easy to elaborate concise facts.  The allegation could be anything from 'no stopping' or unauthorised parking, to an overstay of allowed time, to parking outside of a bay, or perhaps failing to display a ticket, or maybe allegedly failing to pay, or not paying enough, or failing to enter a VRM, or a keypad failure (apparently a favourite trap of this car park operator over the years).  The Defendant cannot guess and is left unable to admit or deny these non-existent allegations. The claim should be struck out.

(rest of template defence from para 4 re-numbered to suit, follows)

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th June, you have until Wednesday 3rd July to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 17th July 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.