Urgent Help - Claim Form

Thanks!

I've just been reading through some threads and came across this;

"“ Preliminary matters.

3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says

1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

4. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
(3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action."


Because i sent a reply after receiving my LBC, stating that their letter did not comply with the PD (is this a part 18 request?), then does that mean that i can use the above as my defence?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not 'as' your defence - that's merely an appetiser, an introduction to show CPR breaches.

That's not your defence. The meat of your defence is about your rights. Read Jopson case defences from November, by searching.

Thanks, ive started compiling a list of points which seem relevant to my own from cases i've found.

I have contacted the letting agent and have read through my tenancy agreement - it doesn't mention anything about a parking space. They forwarded me onto a company which they say looks after the grounds there and the parking, however they say they cannot provide the proof i need that i have the right to park there. Even though this same company is the one that issues parking permits so im a little stumped. I am trying to find out who actually owns the land there but finding it difficult! Do you have any advice? Thank you for your patience with this by the way, as you can probably tell i'm new to this and getting very stressed.