PPL PRS/Pannone - claimform - unpaid auto rolled music performance licence for online Zumba Classes that closed months before rollover. *Claim Dismissed**

[Beesnees]

Particulars of claim for reference only.

1.The Claimants claim is for £105 in respect of an unpaid invoice rendered on the 01 February 2023, issued by the Claimant on behalf of it's members to cover the public performance of musical works at the Defendants premises (as per the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988) .

AND the Claimant claims the sum of £104.62

TOGETHER with interest pursuant to Section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984 from 01 February 2023 to 15th June 2023 at 8.00% per annum being £3.09

and further interest on a daily basis until the date of payment or request for Judgment at the rate stated for the principal sum the daily rate being £0.02p. 15th June 2023

Defence

The validity of the speculative invoice is denied. No copyright protected music has been played on my premises since the end of xxxx xxxx, when the claimant informed me that they were no longer able to issue licences for online fitness classes. The claimant was informed of the cessation of my fitness classes at least dozens of times via their collection agents, but my representations to them were completely and consistently ignored.

 

 

 

.

[AndyOrch]

Not due until 4 tomorrow requires a bit of work...hold on.

 

Andy

[Beesnees]

Sorry, can't wait until tomorrow. Don't wanna take any chances. Intend to lodge by 15:30 today latest. Wasn't the advice above to keep it simple and vague?

Edited July 17, 2023 by Beesnees

[AndyOrch]

Okay well I would add...

 

1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

2.The validity of the speculative invoice is denied. No copyright protected music has been played on the premises since the end of xxxx xxxx, when the claimant informed me that they were no longer able to issue license's for online fitness classes.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence otherwise.

The claimant was informed of the cessation of my fitness classes at least dozens of times via their collection agents, but my representations to them were completely and consistently ignored.

3. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

4. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

[Beesnees]

OK, thx Andy. I thought your amendments came into play later - ie at the hearing. I obviously misunderstood - again.

[AndyOrch]

The initial defence is stage 1 to see if they wish to proceed.....if they do then you will be submitting a further in depth statement as will they.

Lets see.

[Beesnees]

Gotcha.

 

Would it be in order to attach their email that advises my d'r that they can no longer issue licences for fitness classes?

[AndyOrch]

Are you not submitting on line through the MCOL portal ? 

[dx100uk]

yes mcol same as he DID AOS.

no you dont attach anything

thats for you WS LATER!!

 

dx

 

[AndyOrch]

Cant attach anything anyway...

[Beesnees]

Yes, MCOL. I may not be able to attach, but I can effect the same result by quoting it - as in copy/paste. Advisable or not at this stage?

[dx100uk]

urm...

you simply copy and paste the DEFENCE @Andyorch has edited

THATS ALL AT THIS STAGE>

 

dx

 

2 hours ago, Andyorch said:

Okay well I would add...

 

1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

2.The validity of the speculative invoice is denied. No copyright protected music has been played on the premises since the end of xxxx xxxx, when the claimant informed me that they were no longer able to issue license's for online fitness classes.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence otherwise.

The claimant was informed of the cessation of my fitness classes at least dozens of times via their collection agents, but my representations to them were completely and consistently ignored.

3. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

4. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

 

[Beesnees]

[dx100uk]

and now get reading up!!

a good few 10-20+ threads with claimform in the title

so you know whats next and after that etc etc dq180/mediation n157/allocation etc etc witness statements etc etc

how to react etc etc

dont do anything more without checking here FIRST.

 

[Beesnees]

OK, just tried to log into my MCOL account again - 4 times no less. Same error message I got over the wk/end returned every time. Now I'm starting to worry. Took a screenshot as evidence. Does anyone here know the email address?  

[AndyOrch]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/money-claim-online-user-guide/money-claim-online-mcol-user-guide#mcol-support

To be sent by email 

With the Subject heading defence with claim number

Send to email address

Claim Responses

Claim Responses

Complete Online at:

www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/@justice.gov.uk

[Beesnees]

OK, the only contact email address I could find that seemed applicable was this one:

Send by email	Email subject heading	Send to

General correspondence	Claim number only	[email protected]

Defence and counterclaim now submitted. Later than I intended, but then again, their site did give me a lot of grief over the last few days. And still within their deadline despite all that.

Special thx to Andy for his help. I'm sure you're aware I couldn't have done this without you.

[dx100uk]

MCOL is only one way of responding to a claim. 
(AOS, DEFENCE, N180 ETC)
.
If you are having problems logging in, or would prefer not to use MCOL, 
you can fax, email or post your response to the Court instead. 

If you send your response by e mail 
please send it to [email protected]

ensure you quote “Claim number xxx xxx (type of response i'e AOS , Defence, N180)” in the subject field. 
.i hope you didnt counterclaim?

but only filed what @Andyorch gave you?

dx

 

[Beesnees]

C/Claim also submitted. The statement of a/c screams c/claim. I'll explain later.

[dx100uk]

On 27/06/2023 at 13:01, dx100uk said:

stop wasting time on mass conspiracy theories else you'll screw up.

dx

opps that didn't sink in. daddy rage again.

a county court do not act as enforcement for 'the hurt feelings police force'

dx

[Beesnees]

Nothing to do with conspiracy, hurt feelings or dad rage. Everything to do with extorting money with menaces. She is entitled to a refund for both 2021 and 2022, regardless of any other consideration. She would have let it go - but for their malicious claim and continuing pursuit of her.

[dx100uk]

it is still an unnecessary retaliatory action against their claim which complicates matters.

far better done under a new claim for the sums they were not entitled too after they lose this one .

it costs them more money and can include your claimants costs to a certain limit.

dx

[Beesnees]

I don't dispute any of that dx100uk. Truth be told, I seriously doubt I would have pursued a separate future claim once their spurious claim had been rebuffed. It was very much either a case of striking now while the iron was hot, or forgetting about it altogether. I haven't gone into detail, but there is a direct link between their claim and her counterclaim that we wanted to preserve. That link would have been compromised in a separate claim. 

I don't see it as retaliation. If anything, a future counterclaim looks far more retaliatory to me. They need to be made aware of the misery their tactics visit on their victims. If we win the claim, I see it as just recompense for the harm they have done to her. And if we lose - well, that will be my cost, not hers, and that's a risk I was prepared to take. 

Anyway, too late now. I managed to log onto my MCOL a/c after all. Ball now in their court - pun intended. We shall await further developments.

[AndyOrch]

There will be a counterclaim fee subject to the value of your Part 20 counter claim. I wished you would have included the CC in your draft defence as it must be laid out in a certain format to be CPR compliant.

True, the best way to claim is to counter claim at the expense of the claimants claim rather than a separate claim.

 

Andy

[Beesnees]

The fee has been paid - £80.

Sorry, but it's a separate question on the MCOL form, so didn't think it was relevant as far as the defence was concerned. If I made a mistake in the format, hopefully the court can exercise some latitude as far as strict compliance is concerned. As I said, I'm not the AG after all. 

May be too late now, but I can post it here for your 'post-mortem' comments/observations if you wish? And I'm gratified to note that (contra dx100uk) you agree with the timing of my c/claim.