Newbie, sorry, feeling a little overwhelmed

rfhead

Sorry I didn’t realise the bb referred to blue badge, I haven’t looked back to check what was written but I’m sure you’re correct. Sorry it’s been a long day and the morphine has kicked in.
I do apologise.

rfhead

 This is how I understand it so far,

Please please please let me be correct this time.

I’ve read the POC and frankly don’t understand a word of it. 

I’m just a Sainsbury’s worker stacking shelves all day, when I read things like this it just frazzles my head, I’m sorry but when I read the POC it may as well be Russian, it means absolutely nothing to me and as such I wouldn’t have a clue how to respond.

I understand that I need to reply with the facts in section 6, for me it would be simple, 

I was the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the parking charge but not the keeper. A reply wasn’t given to the first two letters received as it was believed they were scam letters trying to obtain bank details fraudulently.

That’s it, that’s the best I’ve got.

I’m not asking to be spoon fed, honestly I’m not, but I just don’t understand a word of what is written in the POC. 

Although in the POC number 4. In the alternative the defendant is perused as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 schedule 4. Does sound like regardless who was driving we will just come and get the costs from the keeper instead. It probably doesn’t mean that at all but that’s how my brain reads it.

But this is what I have below, I hope it’s correct so far, I’ve coped the bit about the blue badge into para 7.

I think that’s correct and then I add the rest of the defence numbered 4 to 30 onwards and re number it from number 8 onwards, I would have thought.

Then sign and date the statement of truth at the bottom.

I’ve probably messed it all up again so let the destroying of my soul commence 😜

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

Edit above as needed

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

2. 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 but not the driver of the vehicle at that time.

6. (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)

7. The driver is a disabled blue badge holder and this claim is illegal discrimination, caused by the Claimant's choice to operate cheaply by using remote ANPR which does not account for the extra time needed by people with mobility and other impairments.

7. (Then put in para 4 of the template defence onwards here and re-number all paragraphs below this. Your defence will exceed 30 paragraphs).

rfhead

I’ve just checked when I did the AOS it was the 3rd of April, I think I’ve gone past the deadline. Do I still complete and email of have I just F****** everything up as usual.

Coupon-mad

OK so you are too late to faff about with emails now: log in on MCOL right now and see if you already have a CCJ.

Do that now.

If no CCJ is noted, forget emailing it: IMMEDIATELY put the defence in on MCOL but you will need to remove all the headings and the entire second half of the Template Defence to make it fit.

And you don't need a statement of truth as that ending isn't needed if it is done online under Start Defence.

Make sure you hit SUBMIT as well.

What you put as 7 should be para 6.

DO NOT EMAIL IT.

DO NOT ASK US WHAT TO REMOVE.

No more checking. Get what you can (top half of the template) in online RIGHT NOW.

rfhead

It’s allowing me to enter a defence, can’t see anything regarding a ccj 
is what’s below okay ?

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

2. 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 but not the driver of the vehicle at that time.

6. The driver is a disabled blue badge holder and this claim is illegal discrimination, caused by the Claimant's choice to operate cheaply by using remote ANPR which does not account for the extra time needed by people with mobility and other impairments.

rfhead

Well I’ve submitted what’s above I just hope I was correct in doing so

Gr1pr

Looks OK to me,  but a bit sparse if you didn't add any paragraphs after paragraph 6, usually half of the full defence could be say 15 to 18 paragraphs,  but the main stuff is definitely in so dont worry about it., despite your misgivings you appear to have got there, definitely a lot better than some knee jerk ones

If you added more paragraphs below 6 and renumbered,  I suggest that you add the full submission below,  suitably redacted of course,  no personal information,  just so we all know the score as to what you used, if it stops at 6 , job done for now 

When you are fresh with time and got your mojo back, study the 12 steps in the defence template thread,  plus the no brainer compulsory mediation stage,  a 5 minutes phone call where you offer zero, or perhaps a tenner,  dont be caught out by not knowing the process,  its in the 12 steps 

The good news is that you have avoided a default CCJ,  even though your defence was due a week ago 

Coupon-mad

rfhead said:

Well I’ve submitted what’s above I just hope I was correct in doing so

Phew! That is certainly good enough! Thank goodness you didn't have a CCJ already. 

Relax now and enjoy the gap while you wait for the next letters on the 'first 12 steps' list in the Template Defence thread. Stick to that.

rfhead

I know the late filing is all my fault, I don’t blame anyone but myself, unfortunately I hold down a full time job I’m also a full time carer for my partner at the moment, I also have a daughter who’s autistic and in full time collage who can’t use public transport. Add to that my partner having a very bad infection and been very ill for nearly a week, it’s been a very hectic month. I do the best I can, and don’t expect people to spoon feed me, but when you don’t understand what’s being said you don’t understand. I’m not the brightest tool in the shed but I’m also not lazy and get on with things. 

But anyway I’m rambling lol, thanks to coupon-mad & Gr1pr for being extremely patient with me and trying your best, I do appreciate it, and also anyone else who replied and tried to help me. I’m still so close to just paying it, but let’s see how things go, I don’t want to give them the benefit of beating me, they are locusts praying on the weak and I hate people like that. I will try and push on and try and stick it to them as I hate bullies, and that’s all they are. 

But thanks anyway I hope that what I replied with will help, as short as it was.
I will just post again what I sent just so any of you can take a look and see what you think.
But once again thanks to all who helped and I’m going to have bank holiday off, relax and do sod all.
I will take a look at the 12 steps on Tuesday, I did take a brief look today and didn’t understand most of it but I will try and persist.
Thanks again
Michelle 

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

2. 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 but not the driver of the vehicle at that time.

6. The driver is a disabled blue badge holder and this claim is illegal discrimination, caused by the Claimant's choice to operate cheaply by using remote ANPR which does not account for the extra time needed by people with mobility and other impairments.

Gr1pr

OK, if you are minded to pay to make it go away,  think carefully over the next few weeks about sums you are happy with,  starting at £10 , perhaps upping it to £20 if necessary,  so increments,  after starting low and working up to whatever you are happy to pay 

Then when the mediator calls each party on the phone,  start at say £10

 I think that say £50 should be an upper limit for you , if their sums are ridiculous and in the hundreds then say no

Play it cool and the lawyers may accept the low figure,  say £10 or £20

Or

You offer but never accept silly high figures, only lower 

Or

You refuse to compromise and play the chicken game,  hoping they discontinue like the other 541 cases on here

Think carefully about it over the next few weeks,  because mediation is probably 2 or 3 months away