Advise on court claim please..

LDast

FYI, the first claim using the short defence also had exactly the same PoC with the “no valid ticket/permit” cause of action. The Claimant withdrew as soon as they received the short defence. They didn’t even bother acknowledging the defence.

The point is that the cause of action, still does not comply with a CPR 16.4 because the cause of action does not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are) relied on.

Coupon-mad

But it doesn't have to.

It only has to state the conduct.

LDast

CPR 16.4(2)(b)(iI) is never complied with.

Coupon-mad

But that's a different part - about interest - and there is no CPR 16.4(2)(b)(iI)

LDast

CPR 16.4:

(2) If the claimant is seeking interest they must—

(b) if the claim is for a specified amount of money, state—

(ii) the date from which it is claimed;

Coupon-mad

So I guess that's the CPR error in the short defence, mentioned by @Johnersh a couple of times. There's no CPR 16.4(2)(b)(iI) but you mean CPR 16.4(2)(b)(ii).
 
Sometimes they do state the date. CEL do and so did UKPC when they attempted to litigate like big boys last year.

But not stating the date that interest is calculated from doesn't see the entire claim struck out.  The substantial claim (minus interest, perhaps) would remain intact and unaffected by that minor CPR oversight.

Johnersh

Quite apart from the fact that there is no substantive defence or even attempt to acknowledge what facts may be determined, the procedural point I took with the short defence is that it referred to an obligation under CPR 16 PD 7.5. which is expressly disapplied by the MCOL specific CPR provisions PD 7C 5.2A (unless separate particulars were served)

The interest point is always wrong in my view, because it is generally claimed from the parking event and on the whole sum, whereas even on the PPC case, the enhancement is applied later as a result of additional accrued costs. So one might expect a hybrid rate of interest to be used to account for that, but no...

Interest is, in any event, discretionary. An error of calculation may well be a factor in disallowing it, but it's rarely going to be enough to cause a judge to strike a claim.  I think that this forum is getting all a bit excitable about what is for the most part the option of last, not first, resort.

LDast

The object is to get the judge to issue the draft order. To date no claimant has managed to comply.

We know there are a few judges who do this of heir own volition. It is an attempt to get more judges to issue these orders which show that the claimants are abusing the system.

Coupon-mad

But they aren't going to do that for a minor oversight of CPR 16.4(2)(b)(ii).

Le_Kirk

<devil's advocate_START> What is the point of having CPR (or any rules) if it is OK to ignore them or abuse them or permit the system to apply random allowances to them particularly in the case cited, as it is absolute [(ii)the date from which it is claimed;] not the day before or the day after? <devil's advocate_END>