On Holiday -Claim.form from civil national business centre

KeithP

Over three weeks ago I wrote on your thread...

KeithP said:
...you have until 4pm on Wednesday 14th August 2024 to file a Defence.

You now have less than two days to do that.

KeithP

Loxy1 said:

...please let me know if this is ok?

How many of those thirty paragraphs of the template Defence have you altered?

It is unfair to ask people to 'proof read' stuff that remains unaltered.

Please edit your post to show just the paragraphs you have changed.

Loxy1

ok thanks, I thought that I was only able to edit para 2 and 3?

Can / should I edit any of the paras?

KeithP

Loxy1 said:

ok thanks, I thought that I was only able to edit para 2 and 3?

Can / should I edit any of the paras?

You should delete from your earlier post those paragraphs that remain unaltered.

Loxy1

Here are the edited paras

2. 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.

Furthermore, upon receipt of the formal letter of claim reference no XXXXX dated -DATE HERE!!! The defendant sent an email as directed by the claimant on DATE YYYY! to request further details and hard copies, this request was ignored by the claimant, hence this lack of dialogue made it even more difficult for the defendant to respond.

 However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

 

 

3. 1 The defendants vehicle was parked at the Crown point shopping centre car park, to facilitate shopping within the stores at the centre.

The alleged breach was “Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space”

3.2 The signage at the site is placed outside the main parking areas and at the time of the alleged breach, the signage was difficult to read and misleading. The sign is misleading as the main conditions shown  in the larger text stated “Maximum stay 3 hours No return within 2 Hours – Parking available for Crown Point customers only while shopping on site”.

The details relating to the alleged breach are in much smaller writing at the bottom of the sign and are extremely difficult to see, it is misleading as the larger text suggests these are the conditions of parking, although these were still difficult to see.

3.3 Condition of the car park – the car park is not well maintained, there is often broken glass in the parking bays and there is a risk of damage to vehicles, this issue can impact on where it is safe to park within the car park and sometimes cars have to be parked so as to avoid the said broken glass.

3.4 The claimant has stated that they sent an initial letter offering reduced payment terms, however no such letter was received by the defendant. The firstl letter received by the defendant stated tha the grace period had expired. The defendant contacted the Car Park owner to contest this, however no reply was offered. The defendant has tried to contact the land owner and Claimant in an attempt to resolve the case, however these have all been ignored.

Loxy1

Also for clarity, does it matter if the driver is named at this stage, and if the driver was a foreign national who was less able to understand complicated signage would this make a difference? I'm not sure on the first point, I doubt the second point would be relevant.

I'm also unsure if I've misunderstood the paragraph form the template, I read that I should only alter paras 2 and 3 but shoudl include ALL of the rest, is this not so?

Thanks again for any help

Loxy1

KeithP said:

Loxy1 said:

ok thanks, I thought that I was only able to edit para 2 and 3?

Can / should I edit any of the paras?

You should delete from your earlier post those paragraphs that remain unaltered.

thank you'I've done that now

Coupon-mad

Please delete the post showing the whole template defence as it puts people off! We don't need to see all that.

I think your additions look fine but you have several paragraphs with no number. Change your 'facts' paragraphs to normal sequential numbering (not 3.1, 3.2, etc).

Loxy1

Coupon-mad said:

Please delete the post showing the whole template defence as it puts people off! We don't need to see all that.

I think your additions look fine but you have several paragraphs with no number. Change your 'facts' paragraphs to normal sequential numbering (not 3.1, 3.2, etc).

Coupon-mad said:

Please delete the post showing the whole template defence as it puts people off! We don't need to see all that.

I think your additions look fine but you have several paragraphs with no number. Change your 'facts' paragraphs to normal sequential numbering (not 3.1, 3.2, etc).

I have removed the earlier post and I have changed the facts paragraphs to the numbering below (and changed the subsequent paras numbers)

2. 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.

3. Furthermore, upon receipt of the formal letter of claim reference no XXXXX dated -DATE HERE!!! The defendant sent an email as directed by the claimant on DATE YYYY! to request further details and hard copies, this request was ignored by the claimant, hence this lack of dialogue made it even more difficult for the defendant to respond.  However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

4. The defendants vehicle was parked at the Crown point shopping centre car park, to facilitate shopping within the stores at the centre. The alleged breach was “Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space”

5. The signage at the site is placed outside the main parking areas and at the time of the alleged breach, the signage was difficult to read and misleading. The sign is misleading as the main conditions shown  in the larger text stated “Maximum stay 3 hours No return within 2 Hours – Parking available for Crown Point customers only while shopping on site”.

6. The details relating to the alleged breach are in much smaller writing at the bottom of the sign and are extremely difficult to see, it is misleading as the larger text suggests these are the conditions of parking, although these were still difficult to see.

7.  Condition of the car park – the car park is not well maintained, there is often broken glass in the parking bays and there is a risk of damage to vehicles, this issue can impact on where it is safe to park within the car park and sometimes cars have to be parked so as to avoid the said broken glass.

8. The claimant has stated that they sent an initial letter offering reduced payment terms, however no such letter was received by the defendant. The first letter received by the defendant stated that the grace period had expired. The defendant contacted the Car Park owner to contest this, however no reply was offered. The defendant has tried to contact the land owner and Claimant in an attempt to resolve the case, however these have all been ignored.

Coupon-mad

Looks good but please show us the POC.