*UPDATE letter received defence not accepted* NCP Moorside court claim received.

Coupon-mad

Please come back but I am away from tomorrow.

See what @Johnersh and others say this week as you only have 48 hours to comply.

The regulars will need to see the NTK (both sides, and not the reminder) that Moorside sent to you in reply to defence because it might mean chopping out Chan and Akande at the start, as well as all the stuff about the DLUHC and the draft IA.

Maybe adding some shorter defence sentences in Johnersh's style instead, to get you past this obstinate judge.

Johnersh

Look, this is very simple. The o/p needs to do a bespoke defence. 

There is no need to cite every bit of case law in a defence, because the law can be referenced in oral submissions or a skelly prior to the hearing.

The o/p needs to respond to the numbered paragraphs admitting, denying (where you can prove an alternative), putting to proof (where you can't necessarily prove an alternative but challenge Cs ability to prove their case) or to aver (suggest an alternative factual case).

This, you may have 

1. Save that it is admitted that D is the keeper of vehicle X, paragraph X is not admitted. The defendant has no recollection as to whether s/he drove the vehicle to location z or at all on [date]. The claimant is put to proof that the defendant was the driver on the date alleged.

2. The defendant avers that s/he normally travels travels to X [specify frequency]. Having visited on [date] s/he would have had no need to re-visit.

3. Paragraph Z is denied. The claimant never received a notice to keeper and was supplied with the same only after court proceedings were commenced. The claimant is put to proof that such notice was properly served.

...

You get the point. There aren't that many paras to work through. But in the example above, even if limited an alternative case as to what did occur, who may have been driving, adequacy of signs can at least be stated (as applicable).

I don't think the DJ is wholly wrong. The template is a tad long and if it is similar to others seen that day, I can see why the order was made.

Kaizen2024

More judges should take this stance. Throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it, much of which will not be relevant to the matter in hand, only muddies the waters and dilutes everything.

PAP requires parties to narrow down the points of dispute; the template does the opposite.

kryten3000

Kaizen2024 said:

More judges should take this stance. Throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it, much of which will not be relevant to the matter in hand, only muddies the waters and dilutes everything.

PAP requires parties to narrow down the points of dispute; the template does the opposite.

No, more judges should strike out claims with non-compliant particulars of claim, but we are where we are.

While the industry churns out template claims, we'll respond with template defences.

For the majority of claims I deal with (and there are many), the template defence does its job perfectly and the Defendant pays nothing despite the futile attempts to suggest that the Defendant has "copied off the internet" or "doesn't understand the defence".  Yet more lies to discredit the Defendant who has often never had to deal with a claim before.

My stats for the first 6 months of 2025 are: 32 cases decided, 1 lost, 8 settled (none for more than £50), 13 discontinued and 9 wins.  I think this says everything you need to know about the outrageous scam.  I just wish I could help more victims.

Johnersh

I agree that all defences should include some facts about the parking event or risk exactly this outcome.

@Kaizen2024 One must agree that the pre-action protocols should narrow issues in dispute. That's what makes it odd that PPCs are generally unwilling to disclose contract information or photos at that stage, when they are so easily provided after litigation has commenced in electronic format.

@kryten3000 is correct that cases which are inadequately pleaded are likely to lead to more generic defences, since the claimant case doesn't become clear till witness statement stage. Many are unwilling to trim down argument that *could* be relevant. Even then, at witness stage, most of those are legal argument not factual statement at all. 

Any road. We are where we are. D will hopefully supply a further defence and on we go.

ChirpyChicken

Kaizen2024 said:

More judges should take this stance. Throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it, much of which will not be relevant to the matter in hand, only muddies the waters and dilutes everything.

PAP requires parties to narrow down the points of dispute; the template does the opposite.

More and more judges are striking out poor POC's. You have to wonder why legal firms aee unable to get it right. It isnt rocket science.

It never fails to amaze me how shoddy these legal firms are.

One wonders why the legal firms in the parking world are so aggressive and confrontational. This simply isnt the case in other areas of litigation.

Kaizen2024

More and more judges are striking out poor POC's. You have to wonder why legal firms aee unable to get it right. It isnt rocket science.

It’s a minor technicality as the motorist will be fully aware of what the claim is about from previous correspondence. Also the scale of the problem with unpaid Parking Charge requires claims to be issued in bulk and it’s difficult to write bespoke PoC for each claim on this basis; advances in technology will soon change this though.

Kaizen2024

One wonders why the legal firms in the parking world are so aggressive and confrontational. This simply isnt the case in other areas of litigation.

Fighting fire with fire I guess, a lot of forum guided correspondence is extremely derogatory and aggressive; particularly the ‘Snotty Letters’ encouraged on CAG.

Car1980

Kaizen2024 said:

More judges should take this stance. Throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it, much of which will not be relevant to the matter in hand, only muddies the waters and dilutes everything.

PAP requires parties to narrow down the points of dispute; the template does the opposite.

There is nothing inherently incorrect about an "internet defence". Research via the internet in this day and age is completely standard for everyone, especially for litigants in person. 

In an ideal world every Defendant would have the know-how to take the template, edit to suit, make additions and remove unnecessary parts. 

But they don't. 0.01% of cases where the judge orders "start again" is hardly the end of the world.

Anyway, looks like the Defendant has scarpered and the defence will be struck out. Frustrating.

Car1980

Kaizen2024 said:

More and more judges are striking out poor POC's. You have to wonder why legal firms aee unable to get it right. It isnt rocket science.

It’s a minor technicality as the motorist will be fully aware of what the claim is about from previous correspondence. Also the scale of the problem with unpaid Parking Charge requires claims to be issued in bulk and it’s difficult to write bespoke PoC for each claim on this basis; advances in technology will soon change this though.

So, you're saying the can give full details* on the BULK letters they send out, but they are incapable of repeating this through a BULK claim via in a box on a website or providing further and fuller particulars in the form of...

.. a letter just like they sent in the first place? 

Pull the other one.

It's because they use legal firms who can't be arsed because they are going to discontinue and it's unprofitable to deviate from pasting in the 3 words off an Excel spreadsheet they can get away with.

At the end of the day this is all contract law and we have a system where a claimant can make a claim based on a contract and are under no obligation to provide a copy of the bloody contract! 

* "full details" of course amounting to reference to terms and conditions that are never supplied in the letter.