Are you satisfied that the address they are using is the one you will use for service of documents? If not, you will need to respond and inform them that they need to use your other address for service. If not, then you can just wait for the actual N1SDT Claim Form to arrive.
Yes it’s fine, I don’t mind if they go to London or Bristol one as long as they do get delivered... I am at both pretty much every other day so it’s no difference.
Additionally, the claimant’s bulk litigator, Moorside Legal, is known to issue claims that breach CPR 16.4(1)(a) by failing to include a clear statement of facts in the Particulars of Claim (PoC). Based on persuasive appeal case law, including CEL v Chan [2023] and CPMS v Akande [2024], it is highly likely that the first claim will be struck out at the allocation stage for failing to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Therefore, it is expected that the first claim will not proceed to a hearing due to these procedural errors.
I am happy and want to go with option 2 but I have to be honest, I would need a bit more hand holding throughout the process as I struggled to follow the detail. I understood that this could have been combined into 1 claim as they are basically the same allegation happening on 2 different dates. That alone will be my defence to struck the 2nd claim correct?
Either way they have literally changed the signage since the driver parked there so I doubt they would be able to prove that the driver didn’t comply with the “contractual signage“... I will wait for the court claim letters to arrive so I can add this to MCOL. Would you be able to help with the defence when the time comes?
