PCM Moorside court claim received (Merged)

KeithP

Well here's some feedback...

1. On 11th December you were advised that you should file an Acknowledgment of Service by 16th December.
   Did you do that?
2. Now that you have shown us your Particulars of Claim, it is clear that they are exceedingly poor.
   They don't even state what the driver has done wrong.
3. You have now shown us a block of text claiming that it is your Witness Statement. 
   Have you already filed a Defence? If not, as I wrote earlier, you have until 4pm on Monday 30th December 2024 to file a Defence.
   That's tomorrow.
4. If you are still to write a Defence, then make sure you include the Chan paragraphs.
5. By using these words "The Claimant states the Defendant agreed to settle the PCN within 28 days of issue, which is not factual." the Claimant is referring to the signs in the car park.
   'Not factual'? Almost certainly the signs state something like... "if the driver doesn't park in accordance with the rules then he agrees to pay £nn within 28 days...".
6. ...and by using these words "The Claimant states the Defendant agreed to settle.." you are admitting that the Defendant was driving.
   Is that what you intended?

befree16

Coupon-mad said:

Who is the Claimant? PCM?

And which solicitor firm?
Gladstones? or Moorside Legal?

The Claimant is PCM, and the solicitor firm is Moorside Legal.

Gr1pr

You should probably use a defence that rebuts the poor POC details,  same as many others 

Save your witness statement for the WS stage,  losing your last point for starters,  the driver was bound by the signs,  which always state that 28 days rule,  so to deny it is pointless,  it actually states that the driver agreed,  which is definitely factual 

befree16

KeithP said:

Well here's some feedback...

1. On 11th December you were advised that you should file an Acknowledgment of Service by 16th December.
   Did you do that?
2. Now that you have shown us your Particulars of Claim, it is clear that they are exceedingly poor.
   They don't even state what the driver has done wrong.
3. You have now shown us a block of text claiming that it is your Witness Statement. 
   Have you already filed a Defence? If not, as I wrote earlier, you have until 4pm on Monday 30th December 2024 to file a Defence.
   That's tomorrow.
4. If you are still to write a Defence, then make sure you include the Chan paragraphs.
5. By using these words "The Claimant states the Defendant agreed to settle the PCN within 28 days of issue, which is not factual." the Claimant is referring to the signs in the car park.
   'Not factual'? Almost certainly the signs state something like... "if the driver doesn't park in accordance with the rules then he agrees to pay £nn within 28 days...".
6. ...and by using these words "The Claimant states the Defendant agreed to settle.." you are admitting that the Defendant was driving.
   Is that what you intended?

Thank you for your response.

1.) I did the AoS.

2.) If I may, it seems they have included in the Particulars of Claim what they perceive I have done wrong: "The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms C's signs" - However it is not specific to this.  The whole Particular of Claims is a sweeping statement.

3.) I am working on the defence tonight, and will have it sent off before the deadline of 4pm Monday 30th Dec 2024.  However I may be a bit confused as to what the defense actually is.  I have the template located here: Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2024 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

I was under the impression I only had to alter the points specified in the template.  Or do I need to do a whole one completely tailored to my case?

4.) Please elaborate on the Chan paragraphs.

5.) I was unaware it meant this.  Thank you for the clarification - I will remove this from my witness statement (point 3).

6.) I did not mean to intend it this way specifically, however I do admit earlier in the statement the Defendant (myself) was the driver of the vehicle.  Should I remove this?  Doesn't make much of a difference?

Thanks!

Gr1pr

The actual breach by the driver is not specified , and all are sweeping statements

Your paragraphs 2 & 3 should be similar to this one 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

Change the ending in 2 to keeper and driver,  if true

Check the issue date on the pcn,  does it match the POC date  , or not  ?

The alternative defence template talks about preliminary paragraphs and 2 appeal cases,  hoping for a strike out

You will be emailing your defence as a PDF document 

There is no S in the word defence  !

LDast

It would help everyone concerned @befree16 if you read the Newbies/FAQ thread before going off half cocked each time you post something.

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

Your paragraphs 2 & 3 should be similar to this one 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

Just to correct this: no they shouldn't. That's a DCB Legal PoC whereas this OP has a Moorside Legal Claim.

The OP needs to search the forum and copy a recent Moorside claim defence that uses Chan and Akande.

befree16

Gr1pr said:

The actual breach by the driver is not specified , and all are sweeping statements

Your paragraphs 2 & 3 should be similar to this one 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

Change the ending in 2 to keeper and driver,  if true

Check the issue date on the pcn,  does it match the POC date  , or not  ?

The alternative defence template talks about preliminary paragraphs and 2 appeal cases,  hoping for a strike out

You will be emailing your defence as a PDF document 

There is no S in the word defence  !

In the link provided, the defendant claims they were not the driver of the vehicle.  I was and do not necessarily want to lie, so would paragraphs 2 and 3 still be relevant to my case?  I have already changed the ending in paragraph 2 to keeper and driver (as per the template recommendations).

Also, in the template, it states to write this in my own words.  I am confused which is the witness statement.  Is paragraph 3 in the linked post the witness statement as below?

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 20/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

The dates on the PCN and PoC are the same, yes.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is the 'alternative defence'?  This: Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2024 — MoneySavingExpert Forum ?

Gr1pr

Paragraph 2 would state keeper and driver,  if true,  so 2 extra words to the template defence Paragraph 2,  as per the recommendations 

Coupon mad is saying that you should study recent Moorside cases that are also based on the POC for 3 ,plus Chan & Akande 

Normally the witness statement bundle is submitted several months after the defence,  but to your local nominated civil court and to Moorside,  so not to the CNBC in Northampton 

There is no witness statement at the defence stage , not when the CNBC are involved 

Hope that information helps 

Coupon-mad

I'm saying the facts aren't in para 3 in any recent Gladstones or Moorside defence so the OP needs to instead just search the forum for defences in those cases (always change the filter to NEWEST results).

Done in twenty minutes flat.

And of course, the alternative version is right there where everyone should expect it to be, clearly linked in the Template Defence ... however it only cites Chan. The OP wants their defence based on newer ones including Akande, which is why I said search & copy.