MET ANPR 2019 PCN Claimform - Occupants left Car Park - Southgate Park, Stansted Airport ***Claim Struck Out***

[TravellingTechy]

Looks like I spoke too soon,

a letter had arrived this week whilst I was working away! 

DCBL confirming that MET intends to proceed with the claim. 

Dated 24th November but must have only arrived Monday or Tuesday. 

Mentions that their client may be prepared to settle the case and to call them within 7 days.

Nothing on the claim history in MCOL yet about DQ's.

They've also said Yes to question A1 where it asks if they agree to the case being transferred to the Small Claims Mediation Service.

[FTMDave]

It is a tactic by DCBL to send out a mock DQ, before it is issued by the court, to try to intimidate the motorist into giving in.

If you read other threads you will see that they do this continuously and you will educate yourself about what is going to happen later down the line.

Just ignore their rubbish.

Keep the weekly watch on MCOL for the real DQ.

[TravellingTechy]

Hi, 

I received the Directions Questionnaire a week or so again from them (apologies for the delay, away with work...again!)

Any recommendations on what to put on this, is there a sticky to read through on this one?  I did have a quick look but couldn't see anything obvious.  

Thanks

[honeybee13]

Are there any particular questions you're stuck on?

HB

[TravellingTechy]

Thanks for the quick response HB.  Having read through some other posts on the N180 relating to PCN's, am I correct with the following responses:

Section A

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

Section C

Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for this case? YES - I assume this is the only answer given the amount of the claim etc, regardless of whether I agree with it?

Section D

Do you consider that this claim is suitable for determination without a hearing... NO - based on what I've read elsewhere I assume this is NO as I don't want them to decide this without me being able to argue my case properly?

Section E

On the hearing venue, I assume I can just select the closest one according to the court finder on gov.uk?  What service needs to be listed for it to be suitable?

 

The letter states 19th January 2024 as the date, does the completed copy need to be with the CNBC by then, or just posted by then?  Then just an additional copy to their solicitors, and one for me?

Thanks again, sorry it's all last minute!

[honeybee13]

That sounds OK to me but please let the regulars have a look later.

When do you plan to submit this?

HB
 

 

[dx100uk]

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

[TravellingTechy]

I've just just received a letter from the local county court this morning saying that after consideration of the file and directions questionnaire etc etc....

it is ordered that The Claim is Struck Out!!!!!

I won't pretend that I understand all the detail as to why, but basically they said the particulars of claim were inadequate, neither the court, nor the defendant is able to understand why the claim is being pursued, and the particulars don't state all the necessary facts, despite the option to provide more detailed particulars.

It says both parties have the option to have the order set aside, varied or stayed, but hopefully they might finally give it up now after 5 years!!!

Thank you so much for all your help on here, it's a fantastic website and service you provide, I'll definitely be making a donation.  Still feel like I can't get too excited yet, but hopefully that's the end of it....  

[honeybee13]

Well done! Is there any chance you could scan up the letter please? It helps if we can see what reasons a court considers to be important.

HB

[FTMDave]

Out standard defence - well done Andyorch - does point out that the PoCs are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.

Obviously an intelligent judge has had a read of them for once and agreed.

Well done judge.  Well done TravellingTechy.

Thread title updated to show victory.

It would cost MET £275 to reinstate the claim

[AndyOrch]

Reading between the lines I would imagine the court ordered the claimant to re serve particularised particulars and has failed to comply with the order.....hence the claim was struck out for none compliance of the court order.

 

Well done all involved.

[dx100uk]

for ONCE the judge actually read  their POC, which is identical to every claimform thread here already that they issue, regardless to the reason the speculative invoice was issued.

the POC doesn't state WHY it was issued - what did the defendant actually did 'wrong'. 

i think they purposefully do this on these reverse trespass PCN's claims to avoid the close scrutiny of 'can they issue an invoice for that reason'? , hoping it will sail through just like ones for not paying for parking etc, which must be what the majority of private parking claimforms judges see across the country are for.

dx

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

I am amazed that they actually took the case to Court. Complete numpties. They make enough money from those who pay them before it goes to Court  so why push their luck. All the Judges surely know they are running a scam site.

nevertheless it is not always easy for motorists to stand up and fight them. So well done for beating them hands down.

[Nicky Boy]

I think they only went to the claim stage because the OP ignored absolutely everything LFI.

Thought they'd get a backdoor CCJ.

Haha!