MET/DCB(L) windscreen PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - electric bay abuse - ASDA Arla Old Dairy South Ruislip

[dx100uk]

our std defence doesn't need adapting.......

and you most certainly dont play your cards yet....RE:

47 minutes ago, rocky_sharma said:

Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

 

48 minutes ago, rocky_sharma said:

Does it matter if my car insurance only has my name?

why? mostly anyone with a std ins can driver any car under 3rd party cover on their ins

 

[rocky_sharma]

thanks I will remove that line. 

Are you also suggesting that I shall remove lines such as Paragraph is denied and Paragraph 2 and 4 is denied? 

Are last 3 paragraphs ok to include? 

[dx100uk]

file our default defence...

[rocky_sharma]

Apologies is below the standard defence? 

I have taken it from below post. 

I wonder if I should also still add below line because in Particulars of Claim there is a paragraph regarding interest.

• there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge. 

OR

• It is unreasonable for Claimant to delay litigation for four years so that they can claim a huge amount of interest

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

[dx100uk]

1 hour ago, rocky_sharma said:

there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge. 

not true.

interest on any court claim is at section 69 flat 8% rate and is at the discretion of the judge if it is awarded.....should you lose.

there is no harm in pointing this out.

The Defendant questions the claimants reason for a +4yrs delay in issuing this claim with regard toward their section 69 court interest figure when their legal position appears not to have changed since PCN issuance.

@Andyorch is the above an appropriate and correct statement to inc?

dx

[AndyOrch]

Has the claimant actually claimed 4 years interest? Added into the total claim amount?

[dx100uk]

difficult to work out. 

their crap poc statement says:

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984

from the date hereof

at a daily rate of £.01 until judgment or sooner payment.

 

Claim Form 08-12-23 (1).pdf

[AndyOrch]

They have  total claimed £170 as per their particulars

Fee £50/£35 = £255.00. 

Therefore yes I would add that paragraph and also to define/quantify damages?

[dx100uk]

[rocky_sharma]

For below I just want to mention that I sold the car almost 8 or 9 months ago however at the time when the PCN was issued I was a keeper so below still be ok?

1. 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

[dx100uk]

you could add 'at the time of the pcn issuance' (date).....(is) = was 

but i feel it will simply open up extra confusion.

..it's immaterial to the date of the court claim for an event when you were the RK.  

On 27/12/2023 at 16:55, Andyorch said:

also to define/quantify damages?

the defendant questions what damages the claimant has suffered.

 

[rocky_sharma]

after all your suggestions I have now prepared below defence can you both please review?   I suppose I need to submit this defence on MCOL site instead of posting?  Many Thanks for your help.

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

6.  The Defendant questions the claimant’s reason for a +4yrs delay in issuing this claim with regard toward their section 69 court interest figure when their legal position appears not to have changed since PCN issuance.

6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

[dx100uk]

2 hours ago, dx100uk said:

the defendant questions what damages the claimant has suffered.

 

[rocky_sharma]

Now added.

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

6.  The Defendant questions the claimant’s reason for a +4yrs delay in issuing this claim with regard toward their section 69 court interest figure when their legal position appears not to have changed since PCN issuance.

7.  the defendant questions what damages the claimant has suffered.

8.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

[FTMDave]

Good to go.

[AndyOrch]

Quote

7.  the defendant questions what damages the claimant has suffered.

The claimant is put to strict proof to disclose and quantify what damages have been incurred which have been added to the total claim

[rocky_sharma]

Thanks I have modified point 7 please confirm and I will submit this on MCOL site.

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

6.  The Defendant questions the claimant’s reason for a +4yrs delay in issuing this claim with regard toward their section 69 court interest figure when their legal position appears not to have changed since PCN issuance.

7.  The claimant is put to strict proof to disclose and quantify what damages have been incurred which have been added to the total claim.

8.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

[AndyOrch]

[rocky_sharma]

Thanks for your help I have submitted the defence.

What is the next step? 

I suppose I will need to keep checking MCOL site to see if Claimant still wants to proceed with the case?

[dx100uk]

you should already know this, the amount you've read up?

100's of pcn claimform threads here

the down times between claim stages is the most important and available time to read up!!

20+ threads a day should do it.

dx

 

 

[FTMDave]

Here's the first of the 20 for tomorrow: it's short and takes you all the way through the court process 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/406892-highview-parking-anpr-pcn-claimform-urban-exchange-manchester-claim-dismissed/#comments

[rocky_sharma]

I have read few threads and next step possibly is to fill out N180 Directions Questionnaire if claim proceeds? 

If so I have looked at the form on gov.uk and I guess same will be sent to me in Post by court?

I have looked at different sections of N180 and provided answers below can you please confirm if those are fine? and please also help where I am not sure what answer to select

Section A

       Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service?    No

Section B  -  Here I fill my contact details but leave it blank in the copy that I send to MET and DBCL?

Section C

       Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for this case? Yes

Section D -  Need help answering below question.

      Do you consider that this claim is suitable for determination without a hearing, i.e. by a judge reading              and considering the case papers, witness statements and other documents filed by the parties, making        a decision, and giving a note of reasons for that decision?  Yes Or No   If No, please state why not.

      Not sure if ‘Small Claims Paper Determination Pilot’ applies in my case and how does that work or my              case is something judge needs to hear directly?

Section E -  For below question shall I mention address of my local county court or leave it empty?  ,  side note also mentions that there is no guarantee of transfer to this court.

      At which County Court hearing centre would you prefer the small claims hearing to take place and why?

      Are you asking for the court’s permission to use the written evidence of an expert? No

      How many witnesses, including yourself, will give evidence on your behalf at the hearing? 1

      Are there any days within the next six months when you, an expert or a witness will not be able to                  attend court for the hearing? No

Section F

      Have you been advised of your right to give evidence in either Welsh or English? Yes

 

Sign  -  again I don't do this in the copy I sent to MET and DBCL, am I right?

 

Thanks

[dx100uk]

as per every already pcn claimform thread here:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track/#comment-5088148

3 copies

yes to mediation (unless you filed our Statute Barred Defence OR this is a claim for a Private Parking Ticket)

1 wit you

Suitability for determination without a hearing? no (that the issues are so complex they need to be argued orally')

the rest is obv

1 to the court

1 to their sols (omit phone/sig/email) if no sols send to claimant

1 for your file

 

dx

[rocky_sharma]

 

On 04/01/2024 at 01:50, dx100uk said:

yes to mediation (unless you filed our Statute Barred Defence OR this is a claim for a Private Parking Ticket)

can you please clarify I think mine is a case of Private Parking Ticket means no to mediation? but you advised to say yes? 

[dx100uk]

no read it properly..

dx