Template defence (archived comments)

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: 'Template' defence suggestion - NB: ultimately, your choice of defence wording is your own.

YankeeBrit

Copy of @Coupon-mad updated WS in RTF format for easy editing:

dropbox.com/scl/fi/i1u2vudfmb4xgyksxf6fd/Aug2023WS.rtf?rlkey=bfedahtd4lw4pqth2cncrrpli&dl=0

LZH85

Thank you so much for the above, just submitted my defence online. Please note that there is a restriction of 120 lines when logging your defence online and hence I had to tweak the above as it wouldn't all fit. Also a reminder to save as you go as it times out!

LZH85

Coupon-mad said:

LZH85 said:

Thank you so much for the above, just submitted my defence online. Please note that there is a restriction of 120 lines when logging your defence online and hence I had to tweak the above as it wouldn't all fit. Also a reminder to save as you go as it times out!

But that's not how we currently submit defences. Why did you do it in MCOL? 

Whats the issue? The claims form states you can submit online at www.moneyclaim.gov.uk, the online defense form is exactly the same as the paper defense form and it populates everything. Its also time stamped with an audit trail as to when its submitted. You don't have to physically sign a paper version if you submit an online version.

RandomGuy2024

@Coupon-mad is the address below a typo? Should it be DQ.CCBC@justice.gov.uk?

10. Except in cases where you have filed a counterclaim (which are allocated to your local court quicker and the CNBC is no longer involved) the completed DQ should be returned by email to the CCBC to this address:  DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk.       Cc a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant (or their solicitor if they are using one).  Their postal address is on your Claim Form but you can find an email for them by searching this forum.

Regards

sammyb1996

Doesn’t look like this defence template worked for me, the judge struck my defence out. Any chance someone could look at my post on a new thread I started? 

kenzie123

sammyb1996 said:

Doesn’t look like this defence template worked for me, the judge struck my defence out. Any chance someone could look at my post on a new thread I started? 

Sorry to hear that, can you link to your post?

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Comments invited although I am now away for a week!

I've updated the Template Defence, which can now be used and put in on MCOL. It's only 10 paragraphs and leaves enough lines for people to put some details in as para 3.

Thanks to @Johnersh @bargepole and @ChirpyChicken for the bits I have plagiarised.

There are now only 8 steps.

No need for headings nor a SoT, nor signature.  No emailing it!

Noted, thanks.  As you refer specifically to Chan & Akande after paragraph #3, would that be a good place to show the Judgments link?

Car1980

Comments invited although I am now away for a week!

Just three thoughts (shoot me down!) that may or may not be worth incorporating:

• claimant makes claim based on contract law but has never provided it
• "confirmed" better than "admitted"?
• worth mentioning that discontinuance was an intention from day 1 and that is what makes it unreasonable?

E.g.


2.  It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant has never provided the wording of the contract they rely upon in any correspondence and is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs. The Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. The vehicle is recognised and it is confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))." It is submitted that a definition of unreasonableness encompasses an intention to discontinue that has been present since the start, as may be stipulated in any contractual relationship between the parking company and bulk litigator.

Happy to delete this in a couple of weeks so we don't clog up this thread.

emmy_lou_2

Hi 
Regarding the updated template, if we are replying to a Gladstone claim do we begin with the original template 

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.  adding basic facts as paragraph 6 and then continue with paragraphs 4 + of the new updated template  or  do we reply with the new template 

1. The Claimant's sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost.

in its entirety and adding personal facts in paragragh 3 ?? 

doubledotcom

Are you certain that the suggested defence for the MCOL actually fits and will not be truncated?

Back in 2023, it was confirmed by the CNBC (CCBC at the time) IT department that the defence webform box has the same character limitation as the PoC one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6444421/word-limit-when-using-the-mcol-to-file-the-defence