Court Claim from Moorside Legal on behalf of UKCPS ltd.

krazykillerxx

Coupon-mad said:

Akande is missing. Here's your defence:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

Remove pretty much all of your paragraphs above. Too much detail. And communications with solicitors are protected by 'legal professional privilege' so they never had to disclose that.

I already have that defence but missing the Akande like you said. I'll add that in.

Oh I wasn't aware that the communications with solicitors wasn't included in my SAR. Interesting to know. The paragraphs above are basically my version from point 6 on your link.

Point 7 confuses me. I'm sure I have the template of defence saved and para 4 onwards on the one I have is the same as points 1-4 in your link. I clearly have the wrong one though. Is what I said in any of the paragraphs above not just covering basic facts? More specifically point 5 in my draft?

Gr1pr

Definitely remove 6 & 7 , save the stories for your WS bundle later this year,  just defend against the actual POC 

People have a penchant to want to explain various issues at the defence stage,  but your WS bundle is the place for the main story,  same as the claimant,  so less is more at the defence stage,  the CNBC are not interested in stories,  your local nominated civil court is

DEFINITELY include both judgments,  not just the one 

krazykillerxx

Gr1pr said:

Definitely remove 6 & 7 , save the stories for your WS bundle later this year,  just defend against the actual POC 

People have a penchant to want to explain various issues at the defence stage,  but your WS bundle is the place for the main story,  same as the claimant,  so less is more at the defence stage,  the CNBC are not interested in stories,  your local nominated civil court is

DEFINITELY include both judgments,  not just the one 

Thank you! So just to clarify as this is all new to me. I can use points 1-5 for the template and submit that to them via email? Leave the moneyclaimonline thing as read only right? 

So name of defendant / claimant at top, copy and paste 1-5 and submit? That all I need to do? I'm only questioning because it seems fairly easy for something I thought would be more complex

Gr1pr

Wait for other comments,  but post your draft of 1 to 5 for clarity 

Dont forget to slot them into the template defence replacing the ones in there   ( use ALL of the template, some 30 paragraphs  )  save as a pdf and attach to the email.  Leave the MCOL website alone,  information only,  looking at progress only,  like a bank statement 

Submission is simple,  you don't have a lot to do at all at the defence stage,  mainly because 95% of the work is done for you, but wait for approval of your proposed changes 

Your WS bundle is your big task in future 

Follow the advice by KeithP,  he explains this stage in his replies to people,  which he did for you 2 weeks ago 

krazykillerxx

I was going to use this: (from the link provided on the thread today)

Claim No.:  #######

Between

#######

(Claimant)

• and -

#######

(Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

_________________

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

1. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities: Chan_Akande

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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.

(Points 6 & 7 on the link suggested to add basic facts) but I've since removed them. 

Gr1pr

The first half of 8 are the basic facts , for an added 6

Coupon-mad

krazykillerxx said:

I was going to use this: (from the link provided on the thread today)

Claim No.:  #######

Between

#######

(Claimant)

• and -

#######

(Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

_________________

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

1. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities: Chan_Akande

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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.

(Points 6 & 7 on the link suggested to add basic facts) but I've since removed them. 

No it doesn't say that for para 7 in the linked post. This makes me really uncomfortable - please - what have I not made clear in the link?

Help! I don't understand the difficulty? In the link I even say what you have to do from para 7 onwards. I thought the link made it crystal clear that is merely the alternative start of the Template Defence which will be over 30 paragraphs altogether.  

As it always is...

So name of defendant / claimant at top, copy and paste 1-5 and submit? That all I need to do?

Absolutely not. Disaster! An unsigned short defence with half the usual points not there.  Clearly the defence is a signed & dated PDF attached to an email as the Template Defence thread coaches everyone. Not 5 starter points copied & pasted and submitted somewhere.

I don't get how this has nearly happened? Is it because I provided a link, assuming you would have read the Template Defence as KeithP already advised you to do on page one? Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be planning to drop the statement of truth & your signature & date as well as three quarters of the entire template defence. Eek! No.

krazykillerxx

@Coupon-mad

I have clearly never had to do this before. There's a lot of information to take in. Knowing the exact correct approach after doing research may be difficult for some. I would appreciate more understanding and less being rude on this matter.

How do you know I do not have severe learning difficulties, or reading difficulties? I'm simply seeking help and while I appreciate your help, your comments are doing quite the opposite.

Nothing nearly happened. I'm simply trying to follow what I am being told. I was not nearly sending 5 points off via email as my defence. Less of the exaggeration please. This is my process of trying to understand and would appreciate your understanding and patience if there were any given.

Back on topic, I now know what to do. To answer your question, it was clear but again, I'm having difficulties understanding as I've read different defence posts and they all seem to tackle it slightly differently, apart from copying the template of defence below.

Gr1pr

Just so you know,  myself and many others here have never had to do this before either,  plus are not dealing with private pcns or court claims,  we offer opinions and advice for free, take it or leave it. 

Many people who come here asking for advice have not done it before either,  but hundreds or thousands of them seem to manage the process,  but usually have to develop a thicker skin because litigation can be brutal. When I read your earlier reply I would be banned for telling you what I thought about the content of your words,  or the implications. Your username does not suggest a timid person with issues.  Personally I find it very offensive  ?

People who have learning difficulties or disabilities should be seeking proper assistance no matter what the underlying problems IMHO,  even if it means a carer or helper , or a parent or friend,  or a lawyer like many claimants do

I too thought that you were ignoring the advice by KeithP 2 weeks ago and your words suggested an extremely short unsigned defence was being considered 

Our aim is to prevent people from blowing off their toes, even if its a short,  sharp shock,  blunt in its delivery,  but effective. Its better to get it right even at the expense of hurt feelings.   Litigation is not for the timid or unprepared person. Sometimes it's a difficult line to see on a text only forum 

I bet she has been very blunt with politicians and civil servants over the last decade or so, people like yourself would be worse off if volunteers like coupon mad,  KeithP and many others weren't here to help 

Le_Kirk

What we are advising is to use the whole of the defence template including Chan and Akande, plus your modified paragraphs #5 and any you add.  Don't show us the whole template on here for checking BUT do send the whole thing - over 30 paragraphs - to CNBC by e-mail.