Are you able to ring the Court again today to see if the fee has been paid?
The original NtK is massively non-compliant and this needs to be drawn to the attention of the Court if this hearing does go ahead.
I can provide extra commentary for you to take with you on the day - this can then be used to walk the Judge through the non-compliance.
theirs is all about another case?
Today is the last day I have to pay the money and make it all go away.?
If the fee has been paid and the claimant has submitted a Witness Statement then (a) you need to complain that you weren’t sent a copy (b) you need to get a copy and rebut anything you disagree with in it and (c) you do this by submitting your own Witness Statement.
I spoke to them, they said no fee has been paid and no documents have been submitted, but it may be that the court hasn’t updated it? I should check again at the end of next week?That’s pathetic, but not unusual.
Having received your own N180, do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and <the lawyers representing Horizon> and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The
Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the
Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without
merit and does not adequately disclose any
comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars
of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal
allegations made against the Defendant such that the
PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached
to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause
(or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the
contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has
breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity
exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when
the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the
vehicle was parked before the parking charge was
allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory
interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is
the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the
Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the
vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes
of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously
struck out similar claims of their own initiative for
failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a),
particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to
specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the
alleged breach with sufficient clarity. The Defendant
refers specifically to:
- Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court,
HHJ Murch, ref: E7GM9W44
- CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court,
HHJ Evans, ref: K0DP5J30
In both cases, the claim was struck out due to identical
failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
5. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this
claim of its own initiative. The Defendant relies on
the judicial reasoning set out in Chan and Akande, as
well as other County Court cases involving identical
failures to adequately comply with CPR 16.4. In those
cases, the court further observed that, given the modest
sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would
be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding
objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim
outright rather than permitting an amendment. The
Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the
particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars
of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because:
(a) they do not set out the exact wording of the
clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of
the contract (or contracts) which is (or are) relied
on; and
(b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant
was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR
16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars
of claim, as it could have done pursuant to CPR PD
7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such
that the court considers it disproportionate and not
in accordance with the overriding objective to allot
to this case any further share of the court's
resources by ordering further particulars of claim
and a further defence, each followed by further
referrals to the judge for case management.
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside,
vary or stay this order by application on notice,
which must be filed at this Court not more than 5
days after service of this order, failing which no
such application may be made.