MPS Windscreen PCN Claimform ***Struck Out***

[shamrocker]

Claim form date: 09 APR 2018

 

======== Particulars of claim ==========

 

1. The driver of the vehicle registration xxxx xxx (the 'Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on the 03/07/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Heritage Gate Neath SA10 6DF.

 

2. The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle.

 

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

3. £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £8.70 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day.

 

[dx100uk]

thread tidied

[dx100uk]

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.

.

register as an individual

note the long gateway number given

then log in

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [link below]

.

type your name ONLY

 

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

 

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim)(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[shamrocker]

Defence is due by end of next week, so could do with a few pointers on what's appropriate.

 

My CPR request has not been responded to as yet, but I'll leave the defence filing until the last day just in case they do respond.

 

Would the best defence be the short one I've seen on a few similar threads?

 

In short...

 

- The Claimant has failed to show any cause for action.

- The site signage does not make an offer of contract, so the monies claimed cannot be owed.

- Claimant failed to demonstrate locus standi in response to CPR request, thus believe it does not exist.

 

Do I need to challenge the issue of who was driving, or is this covered by 'cause for action'?

 

Advice welcome.

[shamrocker]

This EB defence from a thread further down seems like a decent fit for my claim. Any thoughts?

 

1)Claimant has no cause for action against defendant as no keeper liability in this matter as protocols of the POFA not adhered to.

 

2)In any case no contract offered by signage at the site so there can be no breach of contract to give rise to a claim.

 

3)The defendant does not believe that the claimant has any rights to bring a claim against anyone as they have failed to show any assignment of the authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims on ther own behalf by way of a CPR 31.14 request.

 

4)The claim fails to show the necessary detail in the Particulars of Claim as to what it is about as required in CPR 16.4.

It does not state what capacity the defendant is being sued nor whether this os for a breach of contract or a contractual sum,

the amount claimed does not reconcile with anything claimed by way of the signage at the site nor the invoice sent as a notice to keeper.

[ericsbrother]

not answering your discovery request is a good thing as you can then state as your new point 1 rather than as point 3.

If this is so everything else fails anyway.

 

The lack of keeper liability can be addressed by a denial that the keeper was the driver at the time but this is best used when the keeper can offer something else to go with this.

 

as for the last point, again this is part of the POFA so worth saying what paragraph applies.

 

You will get to put all of the detail in when the time comes

Edited May 5, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[shamrocker]

Hi EB...

 

How does this defence look to you?

 

1. The Defendant does not believe that the Claimant has any rights to bring a claim against anyone, as they have failed, by way of a CPR 31.14 request, to show any assignment of the authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims on their own behalf.

 

2. The Claimant does not shown a cause for action against the defendant, and their claim is too vague to comply with CPR 16.4. It does not demonstrate that the Defendant has any liability, due to its failure to identify the capacity for which they are being sued - either as the driver at the time, or the keeper.

 

3. The Claimant does not say whether the claim is the result of a breach of contract and, if so, the nature of this - or whether it is a claim for a contractual sum.

 

4. The amount of the claim does not reflect the amount advertised, either in the signage advertising the contract, or on the Notice to Keeper. Therefore, it is not evident why the amount claimed is more than the supposedly advertised sum. Section 9(2)(d)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 limits the total of any monies demanded from the Keeper to those “specified in the notice”.

 

5. The signage at the site is prohibitive, so does not make an offer of contract. Therefore, no monies can be due to the Claimant by way of any contractual obligation.

 

6. The defendant requests a strike out of the claim under CPR 3.4, as the claim is an abuse of process.

 

 

Is it CPR compliant? I am hoping it is covered by CPR 16.5 (3):

a defendant who –

(a) fails to deal with an allegation; but

(b) has set out in his defence the nature of his case in relation to the issue to which that allegation is relevant,

shall be taken to require that allegation to be proved.

 

Is the numbering correct?

 

Many thanks!

[AndyOrch]

You could add the following as your intro then it does cover CPR16.5

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. 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.

[shamrocker]

Thanks Andy! I will add that in.

 

EB... I'll await your feedback too when you get a chance to look in.

[ericsbrother]

you want to look at CPR 16.4 which places the burden on the claimant to produce the full info at the time rather than worry about 16.5.

 

I know of only 1 case in the last 3 years where a defendant has been torn off a strip in court under CPR 16.5 for not including something they wanted to go into in their witness statement.

 

generally your defence at this point should cover all of the things you want to raise in detail so in this case you also use the lack of planning permission for their signage meaning you cant enter into a criminal compact

 

Also go into more detail on your point 6 as to why such as

 

with regard to their failure to show any authority,

 

the failure to identify the creditor in this claim,

 

failing to say whether the claim is monies owed as a contractual obligation or for breach of contract

 

and failing to show strict proof as to who the driver was at the time as there is no keeper liability in this matter.

 

Furthermore the sum claimed does not reconcile with the amount claimed in the notice to keeper and this is a requiremnt for any liability whatsoever under the POFA.

 

You might want to play around with the order of things but invite the strike out.

What normally happens is the claimant is ordered to resubmit addressing all of these points or automatically lose.

 

If a CMO is ordered in this regard expect to have to provide more detail as a result of the newly worded claim but that is no problem

 

Hi EB...

 

How does this defence look to you?

 

1. The Defendant does not believe that the Claimant has any rights to bring a claim against anyone, as they have failed, by way of a CPR 31.14 request, to show any assignment of the authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims on their own behalf.

 

2. The Claimant does not shown a cause for action against the defendant, and their claim is too vague to comply with CPR 16.4. It does not demonstrate that the Defendant has any liability, due to its failure to identify the capacity for which they are being sued - either as the driver at the time, or the keeper.

 

3. The Claimant does not say whether the claim is the result of a breach of contract and, if so, the nature of this - or whether it is a claim for a contractual sum.

 

4. The amount of the claim does not reflect the amount advertised, either in the signage advertising the contract, or on the Notice to Keeper. Therefore, it is not evident why the amount claimed is more than the supposedly advertised sum. Section 9(2)(d)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 limits the total of any monies demanded from the Keeper to those “specified in the notice”.

 

5. The signage at the site is prohibitive, so does not make an offer of contract. Therefore, no monies can be due to the Claimant by way of any contractual obligation.

 

6. The defendant requests a strike out of the claim under CPR 3.4, as the claim is an abuse of process.

 

 

Is it CPR compliant? I am hoping it is covered by CPR 16.5 (3):

a defendant who –

(a) fails to deal with an allegation; but

(b) has set out in his defence the nature of his case in relation to the issue to which that allegation is relevant,

shall be taken to require that allegation to be proved.

 

Is the numbering correct?

 

Many thanks!

Edited May 9, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[shamrocker]

Thanks EB! I'm in the the process of adding these other bits.

 

Just one question, does it matter in regards to planning permission if the entrance signs (and all other signs, for that matter) are not larger than 0.3m square?

[shamrocker]

One more thing EB - why, as you see it, is there no keeper liability?

 

I'm almost there now in terms of the points I will make, but the more I read, the more questions seem to arise.

 

Many thanks!

[ericsbrother]

why?

 

because you ignored them so didn't identify yourself as the driver and by adding these made up amounts to the amount they are allowed to bill you for means that they are claiming from you as the driver not the keeper or they would be breaking the law.

 

They cant have it both ways but do try.

 

you need to copy the POFA for your evidence bundle and read it thoroughly,

especially where certain key phrases must be used to create a liability at all.

 

Some bits, if they fail to follow mean that they cant bill anyone.

 

One of the reasons you ask for their contract under the CPR 31.14.

i bet they have a deal with the managing agents and not the landlord.

 

that means the POFA conditions arent satisfied (and law on contracts) so no liability and they have committed an offence under the DPA by obtaining and processing your data.

 

you can sue them for this but lets get over this hurdle first.

[shamrocker]

Ok, thanks EB. That's food for thought. I've been reading POFA, but still very much digesting it. I should be in OK shape with it by the time WS stage comes along - hopefully anyway.

 

Thanks again!

 

This is where I'm at now.

I will probably expand on the last point,

requesting a strike out for abuse of process,

but is there too much waffle in the other points?

 

Could I strengthen any points?

 

I'm at the stage where I just want to send it and just deal with whatever comes along. My understanding on how to turn the screw on POFA regards to keeper liability is a little limited, but I'll keep reading. They do need to get past the lack of authority and and prohibitive signage in any case.

 

Defence

 

1. The Defendant does not believe that the Claimant has any rights to bring a claim against anyone, as they have failed, by way of a CPR 31.14 request, to show any assignment of the authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims on their own behalf.

 

2. The Claimant relies on its provision of signage at the site, and upon the content of that signage in the forming of a contract. The Claimant has failed to respond to the aforementioned CPR 31.14 request for, amongst other things, proof of planning permission for their signage, in compliance with r.30 of the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. Failure to obtain planning permission for such signage is a criminal offence, thus rendering any contract based upon it invalid and unenforceable. The Defendant is of the belief that planning permission does not exist.

 

3. The Claimant does not show a cause for action against the defendant, and their claim is too vague to comply with CPR 16.4. It does not demonstrate that the Defendant has any liability, due to its failure to identify the capacity for which they are being sued - either as the driver at the time, or the keeper.

 

4. The amount of the claim does not reflect the amount advertised, either in the signage advertising the contract, or on the Notice to Keeper. It is not evident why the amount claimed is more than the supposedly advertised sum. Section 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 limits the total of any monies demanded from the Keeper to those “specified in the notice to keeper”.

 

5. Non-compliance with s.4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in respect of the amount being claimed means there cannot be keeper liability in this matter and, therefore, suggests that the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as the driver rather than the keeper. To that extent, they are put to strict proof to support their claim with evidence of the identity of the driver.

 

6. The Claimant does not say whether the claim is the result of a breach of contract and, if so, the nature of this - or whether it is a claim for a contractual sum.

 

7. The signage at the site is prohibitive, so does not make an offer of contract. Therefore, no monies can be due to the Claimant by way of any contractual obligation.

 

8. The defendant requests a strike out of the claim under CPR 3.4, as the claim is an abuse of process.

[ericsbrother]

that will do nicely apart from I would turn the wording round in point 2 to say that you dont believe they have PP and then say contract cant be formed due to their criminality rather than ending with PP doesnt exist (it does exist - just they dont have it)

[shamrocker]

Thanks EB! I can't even begin to tell you how much I appreciate your support on this. I'll get this submitted today, as tomorrow is the deadline.

 

Thanks again.

[shamrocker]

Received letter from Gladstones with a pre-completed Directions Questionnaire "which will be filed with the Court upon their request.

 

You will note we intend to request...the case be dealt with on the papers..."

 

I presume there's no need to reply to any of this game-playing...right?

 

Just await official correspondence from the Court?

 

Instead,

today I will be sending a letter of request to the Court to strike out the claim,

as per recommendations on here.

[dx100uk]

yep await your N180

[AndyOrch]

On what basis would you ask for it to be struck out Sham ?

[shamrocker]

On what basis would you ask for it to be struck out Sham ?

 

Hi Andy

 

This what I have in the letter:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Request to strike out claim

 

I write with regards to the above claim number. Further to my Defence of the same, I request that the Court considers striking the claim out under powers granted to it by CPR 3.4. I propose the following reasons in support of this request:

 

1. The Particulars of Claim are so vague that they fail to show a cause for action against the Defendant.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to meet the standards required by CPR 16.4.

3. The Claimant has no locus standi in this matter.

 

Thank you in anticipation of giving your consideration to this request.

 

What are your thoughts?

[AndyOrch]

Fine but you will have to do it by way of an application notice N244...fee will be £255 ?

[shamrocker]

Ok, thanks Andy. I was just acting upon advice given on here.

 

I'll give it a miss, as I can't justify paying that for it, and can't see the court taking much notice anyway tbh.

 

Thanks as always!

[ericsbrother]

I would put that in a letter with your skeleton defence and let the court decide what they want to do about it.

usually it results in a Case Management Order where MPS will be told to produce the evidence of a lawful claim or they will have the claim struck out by the court.

 

You can put the above in your defence but add something else as well that addresses whatever they have claimed so how about "no contract between the claimant and defendant was ever created so no monies can possibly be due.

 

 

The defendant is the keeper of the vehicle in question and no keeper liability was created so the defendant puts it to STRICT PROOF that MPS show who was driving at the time.

 

That is enough to get you to the next fence and they will be hard pushed to get over that one.

 

Generally theswe things do drag out to a hearing because the courts like to give each side their chance to say thier bit even though one side is using an incompetent solicitor who loses any defended claim of this type

 

Hi Andy

 

This what I have in the letter:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Request to strike out claim

 

I write with regards to the above claim number. Further to my Defence of the same, I request that the Court considers striking the claim out under powers granted to it by CPR 3.4. I propose the following reasons in support of this request:

 

1. The Particulars of Claim are so vague that they fail to show a cause for action against the Defendant.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to meet the standards required by CPR 16.4.

3. The Claimant has no locus standi in this matter.

 

Thank you in anticipation of giving your consideration to this request.

 

What are your thoughts?

Edited May 17, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[AndyOrch]

Disagree...you cant add to a defence already submitted...and you wont be submitting any skeletons until the day of the trial.

 

Claim is going to allocation there wont be any CMCs

 

You could add it to your witness statement...but Orders are normally only acted on by way of an application N244...letters are disregarded.

[shamrocker]

Thanks for your input guys.

 

I very much value the advice you both give to me and others.

I've decided not to send the letter though.

 

The defence is submitted now,

I will now just await an opportunity to turn the screw on them within my WS.

 

Being a mere novice at this, I'm a little bit concerned that my defence hasn't admitted or denied anything

- the main denial being whether it was myself driving.

 

However, my position on this is that a denial would likely give reason to MPS to chase others named on the insurance

- as is mentioned in a successful case posted on the Parking Prankster's site.

 

In any event, the Claimant ought to be more specific as to which set of circumstances gives rise to the claim and, therefore, which one I am defending.