Show Posts - Gardener

I had the mediation phone calls yesterday. The Claimant's name of person attending was given as Justyce Ajibade.

I've received an appointment for a mediation phone call.Just wanted to confirm this is the recommended reponse(Thank you to B789):

• This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from the mediator:“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:• the full name of the person attending for them;• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.Please relay that back to me before we continue.”After the mediator calls back...• If identified and authority confirmed:“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”• If no/unclear authority:“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.

[/i]

Many thanks. 

Just to confirm that Section E. About the mediation appointment  - should be left blank.

Thankyou - very helpful.

Here is a brief update: email received from DCB Legal:

Update showing acknowledgement of defence from the court (received a week after the date of the letter):

Plain Text Defence:Defence and CounterclaimClaim number************ClaimantSmart Parking LimitedDefendant************ How much of the claim do you dispute?I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form. Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?No, for other reasons. Defence1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendantasserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that nodebt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequatelydisclose 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 madeagainst the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately complywith CPR 16.4.3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to thePoC 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 (orcontracts) 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 exactlywhere the breach occurred, the exact time when the breachoccurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parkedbefore the parking charge was allegedly incurred;(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed iscalculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,damages, or other charges;(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is theparking charge and what proportion is damages;(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant issued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimantcannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck outsimilar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequatelycomply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars ofClaim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon orexplain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have foundthat requiring further case management steps would bedisproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendantsubmits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invitesthe court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claimdue to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply withCPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendantproposes that the following Order be made:Draft Order:Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particularsof claim and the defence.AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claimdo not adequately 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 whichis (or are) relied on; and(b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) whythe claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach ofcontract.AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had itserved separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could havedone 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 thecourt considers it disproportionate and not in accordance withthe overriding objective to allot to this case any further shareof the court's resources by ordering further particulars ofclaim and a further defence, each followed by further referralsto the judge for case management.ORDER:1. The claim is struck out.2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary orstay this order by application on notice, which must be filed atthis Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,failing which no such application may be made. SignedI am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true************10/08/2025 Defendant's date of birth************** Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you************ Telephone number************E-mail***********

Quote from: b789 on 10 Aug, 2025 15:16Can you please show us what the defence looks like as a PDF...Absolutely, this is the PDF style (4 pages):Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4

Thank you to everyone for your replies and your time looking at this.

Quote from: b789 on 10 Aug, 2025 12:57Just follow this advice... Many, many thanks b789I have submitted the defence via Money Claim Online

Quote from: jfollows on 10 Aug, 2025 11:51The second PCN 2/7 - 13/7 is in time. Again presumed delivered 15/7.However they have conflated the claims into one, and therefore can’t use “In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pusuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4” as they claim.Thank you for looking at this carefully @jfollows, this is very helpful.

Quote from: jfollows on 10 Aug, 2025 10:13Smart frequently fails to comply with PoFA 2012 in its notices, can you post the original PCN?Some background description of events is usually helpful also, per https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/If you just use what was a response to Parking Eye you may be missing a trick.My understanding is the driver entered the following road (Westward Parade) which leads to Pepper Street and Oakland Quay - to carry out work for a resident of Arena Tower:As understood now these roads/streets are private property. However at the time of the PCNs it wasn't clear that this was private property or the terms of parking requirements.

Quote from: Dave65 on 10 Aug, 2025 10:53Do we presume that you have ignored all correspondence so far and not replied to any.If so, unfortunately this is a example of not to ignore and gives more work to do.However, help will be here.Thank you @Dave65I haven't replied to any of the correspondence - a lesson now learnt.

Thank you @jfollowsHere are the PCNs