Excellent. A judge with a clear understanding of the rubbish PoC that are clogging up the system.
This has taken almost 9 months from the date the LoC was issued. The CNBC managed to derail it all when they allowed the claimant to request a judgment in default and then had to scurry and get that CCJ set aside using their administrative powers, only after you had to complain to them about it.
Finally, the claim was defended using the short defence and the court has seen fit to strike out the claim for the defective PoC, which should really be the case for any claim issued by the incompetents at DCB Legal.
I repeat the courts 'upon' order here for the delectation of others:
ORDER OF THE COURT'S OWN MOTION
UPON REVIEWING THE COURT FILE
UPON The Court noting that CPR 16.4 imposes a mandatory requirement that a Particulars of Claim must include a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies
UPON the Court being of the view that the Particulars of Claim in this case are defective under CPR 16.4 because they
1. Describe the alleged breach as "Failure to purchase the parking tariff for the registration mark of the vehicle on site and/or within the time allowed," which means that the Defendant does not know whether the case they have to meet is (a) they didn't pay for parking at all; or (b) they paid for only part of, but not all, the time they were on site (in which case entry and departure times ought to be specified if available through ANPR records); or (c) they made a payment but did not enter the correct registration; or (d) they paid for parking but did not make payment within the time limit required ( in which case the question arises as to how late they were in paying and what loss if any was sustained)
UPON the Court being mindful of the need to conduct bulk litigation at proportionate cost, but being of the view that this does not override the need for a Defendant to know from the outset the factual case they have to answer.
UPON the Court being satisfied it is proportionate to make the Order set out below
ORDER
1. Pursuant to CPR 3.4 the Claim is struck out
2. As this Order was made without a hearing any party may apply to set aside vary or discharge it within 7 days of being served with it
Not withstanding the above, they would have discontinued anyway, as is their M.O. However, it is always much more satisfying when their claim is struck out instead.
