CCJ from VWFS (Car Finance)

[Unknown2023]

Reply to defence and Counterclaim - personal details redacted

https://jmp.sh/s/pPeRZDcEb4YgdN8adMrQ

[R0b]

What are your thoughts on this? They are claiming the part-exchange was a discount off the vehicle rather than a deposit, is that true? If so, that blows any defence you have on that out of the water, although I guess they will have to provide evidence that the scheme offered was a discount off the price of a car rather than a deposit. I don't think I've seen any evidence from yu indicating the amount for the part-exchange. Is there anything on your paperwork that suggests the part ex is a discount off the sale price, or does it state a deposit is it silent, in which case were you led to believe it was a deposit towards the vehicle?

What's the deal with this £500 being returned back to you on the new vehicle invoice, is that true did you get a refund back?

Para 24(b) makes no sense to me because s90 only applies if you (the debtor) terminates the agreement. The termination letter presumably shows that VW (the creditor) has terminated the agreement due to your repudiation, which is essentially a material breach on your part. They accepted the breach and then terminated the agreement by virtue of the letter so that's an error.

If the 1/3 defence fails, your argument is resting on the agreement and the default notice being incorrect which doesn't look promising if your figures are wrong and have no evidence to back it up.

[Unknown2023]

My thoughts were that it looks like a desperate attempt to claw something back from my counter claim actually. Did you not get that impression?
The fact it was delivered to the court a day late and via email (which they won't accept having spoken to the courts about it previously) can I not argue that to the judge if he even does read it?

The deposit is a tricky one. There is a piece of paperwork calling it a discount rather than a deposit. But then there are two pieces of paperwork calling it a contribution.
The whole scheme itself was known as the diesel scrappage deposit scheme, and it was sold to me as your part exchanged car being given a higher value as a contribution to a new car, a deposit. However, I was asked to prove that I had provided a car on scrappage with a value of 7k by the judge and I have done that.

I used the same figures as you and we both came to the same result so we can't both be wrong. However you look at it the total payable amount is still wrong and should include the scrappage discount or deposit, and should still include my £1000 deposit. I did not receive a 599 refund, what I did was added gap insurance to my agreement to the cost of 599 but I do not see why this would come out of my deposit and there is no evidence to back that up on their side. The 401 advance payment is incorrect no matter how you look at it, I have several documents showing 34181.23 less £1000 cash deposit.

They also lied about putting the stolen marker on the car and I can provide evidence of that from the police, I've already spoken to them and there is a history of this on my police record.

What happens now will this go to a trial or will the judge look at both sets of paperwork and make a decision? There's an awful lot of waffle in their statement don't you think? And they have agreed with a lot of my points which can't be a bad thing?

I really hope the judge favours me as he did in the set aside hearing. Otherwise this will have just cost me in the region of 12k and I don't have that money, I put in a counter claim because I truly believed that the paperwork was incorrect.

[R0b]

Well it's presented a lot of fluff as I read it but also there are some little nuggets of valid defence points which are key to your arguments. There's definitely a couple of things they have incorrectly stated in the defence to counterclaim as it doesn't make sense but it will come down to what happens at the hearing.

For now, there are processes to follow, there will be directions based on the value of the claim and then possibly further three way conferences between you, VW and the judge to set directions and other things. Witness statements will need to be written etc. and then trial bundles exchanged with evidence to be used at that hearing.

The deposit/discount will depend on who has the better argument. A contribution is a term typically used to indicate a deposit rather than a discount and I'm not familiar with the scrappage scheme so I don't know if the intention was to discount the sale price or add as a deposit. Again, evidence will be needed to prove it. If there's confusion as to whether it was a discount or a deposit, you may be able to argue that as a consumer, the court should resolve this in your favour. I think what VW are trying to say is that if it is a discount, then it shouldn't be seen as an advance payment in the agreement as they have simply reduced the sale price which then becomes the vehicle sale price.

As for the GAP insurance, that doesn't make sense to me because GAP is usually a value added product and is either paid separately as a one off or it is added to the agreement and accrues interest over the term.

I haven't seen the two documents referring to the deposit or the PCP agreement so I can't really comment much more than that. What you can do if you like but it is not mandatory, is you can file a reply to their defence and try to counter some of the things they are trying to say. You do not need to address every bullet point because under the civil procedure rules if you file a reply you are not deemed to admit anything even if you don't refer to it (unlike a defence where if you don't address the point it is taken as an admission).

By using the reply you can explain that you have two documents proving it was referenced as a contribution, which is a term frequently associated with a deposit contribution. The GAP insurance or deduction you probably want to double check also because it seems like they are adamant that you never made that £1000 deposit. However, if you did and you need to check the PCP agreement, that does still affect the figures and even if you no longer have an argument on the 1/3 price, you may still have an argument on the PCP agreement being incorrect and everything flowing down from that including the default notice is tainted and defective, so they had no right to claim the money.

Tactically, you may want to put feelers out at some point of suggesting if they are up for negotiating a settlement and see what they say, maybe putting for your initial offer of the return of the money paid under the 1/3 price rule and go from there. Your ultimate win may be that you both drop hands and walk away bearing your own costs. Consideration for that should be after whether or not you decide to file a reply to their defence.

Unfortunately, this is the cost of litigation in that there are serious consequences if you don't have your house in order and all the available facts to hand.

[Unknown2023]

Thanks for the detailed reply Rob as always.

You didn't clarify so I just wanted to check again, they served this reply to my Defence late, the judge ordered it to be filed and served within 28 days from the 13th December, their reply has been received on the 15th January. Will the judge even look at it?

I will happily argue the contribution as I was definitely sold it as a deposit, I even have written notes from the dealership confirming this but I believe it was calculated incorrectly on the sales order form as a discount and not a deposit. This will be my argument. I was even told they'd give me 7k for that car in those exact words.
The £1000 deposit in cash is no argument at all, I've provided the judge with the receipt for this attached to my counter claim paperwork.

Submitting a reply sounds interesting. Again I send this to both VW and to the courts? I should start this now? I will definitely need your help when it comes to rewriting new witness statements etc as this is getting in deep now.

At what point do I speak to VW about a settlement? Once I have submitted a reply to their latest response?

The documents that VW have referred to are not attached to my email or to the courts so their claims are not backed up with any evidence (I was a CC in the court email they submitted)

Sorry for all the questions this is all still very new to me

[R0b]

I've only had a quick skim of the document so I will try to collect some further thoughts later this evening/tomorrow when I have had time to fully read it. There's not much you can do about the defence being served late because if they were late, you could have applied for default judgment. Unfortunately the rules have changed saying that a default judgment should not be granted if a defence has been filed, even if late. Even if one were granted, VW would more than likely seek to set it aside and there would be a good chance of a court agreeing to that so I don't think there is anything to do on that point.

Just bear in mind, you put forward your strongest evidence first, which will be the contribution references. Anything else referring to discounts is up to VW to present. I would have thought any scrappage scheme discount/deposit would have been captured in the terms of the PCP agreement or any ancillary documents as to how it would be applied. VW hasn't made any reference to terms or other documents which suggests there may not be any terms around that. Either way, Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 may be of assistance which says:

69 Contract terms that may have different meanings
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

As for the reply, yes you send it both to VW and the court and usually the reply is sent when you have to file the directions questionnaire which could be sooner than later depending on how fast the court is working at the moment. So you should start this as soon as possible, focusing on the key paragraphs you want to deny or not accept and then counter why you do not accept what they are saying.

Settlement talks should ideally start soon after a reply has been filed assuming you intend to make one and allowing them time to digest your reply.

You are entitled to request documents referred to in their defence as are VW allowed to ask for documents referred to in your reply and you should provide copies but that doesn't mean they will ask for it now though they might do to see what you have in your possession so far. However, if this is likely to end up on the fast track then documents are disclosable anyway further down in proceedings as you will need to list the documents in your possession and then a sub-category of documents that you think are not relevant.

Side question, did you ever make that subject access request to VW? If not, now might be the time to do that.

[Unknown2023]

Okay that makes sense, thanks for clearing that up. It's just annoying as the court was very particular to me about serving my Defence on time, had it been me that had served late the whole thing would have most likely been struck out.

I made the mistake of attaching the documents I was referencing to the counter claim when I sent it to VWFS, so they have cherry picked the information from the sales documents that I sent to the court and flipped based on making their defence sound more favourable for them. Which is fine, I have other documents that I have not presented which are more favourable to me.

I did not do an official SAR as such, but I did approach the dealer that I bought the car from and received all the documents concerning the sale, invoices, order forms etc. And each document shows a different cost or different sums so it prices how much their paperwork is up their arse. Is it still worth hitting them with a full SAR then?

Very happy with S69 of the consumer rights that you've found, I was certainly sold the car as my part exchange would be a deposit and not a discount. The documents do not state specifically how the part exchange will be applied, as said it varies on each document making it all very unclear.

If you wish to see any of the documents I hold to make a more informed opinion on this I'm happy to upload some of what I have, although there are a select few that I'm keeping close to my chest for obvious reasons

[R0b]

I made the mistake of attaching the documents I was referencing to the counter claim when I sent it to VWFS, so they have cherry picked the information from the sales documents that I sent to the court and flipped based on making their defence sound more favourable for them. Which is fine, I have other documents that I have not presented which are more favourable to me.

Lesson learnt. When you file a defence or particulars of claim, you do not need to attach any documents other than specifically what the court has ordered. Your evidence is disclosable typically at the witness statement stages which is much further down the line.

I think an official SAR may be useful to both the dealer and VW as it may uncover something you don't current have in your possession that could support your defence and counterclaim, but it is up to you.

So from reading the Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, there's a few common issues of which I think is the crux of the dispute and I've tried to set them out below for ease, so it helps when reading what I am about to say further down, but let me know if you think I've missed anything off.

Unknown2023 Issues	VW Response
1. Claimant incorrectly calculated the figures in the PCP agreement. You have evidence and contemporaneous notes from the dealership confirming the part-exchange was a deposit and not a discount as alleged by VW. The value of the part-exchange should have been recorded as a deposit/advance payment under the agreement.	VW are basically saying that you got your maths wrong and what they have stated is correct. There was an offer that if you handed in your old diesel car then you would be given a discount against the sale price. This is what they refer to as the 'Scrappage Discount' in addition to other discounts that were applied.
2. A cash deposit of £1,000 was paid by bank transfer. This was not recorded in the Agreement.	VW say that there was not a £1,000 deposit, rather £599 was returned to you in some way although they haven't described how that was returned or if it was offset against something. They are referring to the New Sale invoice as evidence it was refunded.
3. The vehicle was reported as stolen by VW or someone acting on their behalf. You were pulled over by the police and it was seized on a highway/motorway whilst other people were in the vehicle. You argue that this was an unlawful possession because you had paid 1/3 of the total price based on the fact that you paid a deposit via the part-exchange.	VW deny that they ever reported the vehicle as stolen, but have given no explanation as to how the vehicle came into their possession and proceed to sell it. Even if it was reported stolen by them, they were entitled to recover it because you were unlawfully in possession of the vehicle. VW deny you paid 1/3 of the price for the reasons explained and particularly that the part-exchange was a discount and not a deposit which did not need to be recorded as an advance payment.

Now, the way I see it, if a court finds in your favour on issue 1 that the part-exchange value should have been recorded as an advance payment, everything else falls away and doesn't need to be argued/discussed because by then you would have hit the 1/3 total price and therefore section 90 kicks in.

I'm a little rusty on the CCA and relevant legislation as I rarely get involved in this sort of stuff these days but, I did some digging around and I think there's a few decent arguments you can have up your sleeve that could swing things in your favour.

Issue 1 - the Deposit/Discount

Argument 1:

Under the Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 2010, the definition of 'advance payment' means:

any deposit and in relation to a regulated consumer credit agreement includes also any part-exchange allowance in respect of any goods agreed in antecedent negotiations to be taken by the creditor in part-exchange but does not include a repayment of credit or any insurance premium or any amount entering into the total charge for credit

The definition above makes it clear, per my emphasis that a part exchange of a vehicle that is agreed to be deemed an advance payment for the purposes of regulated consumer credit agreements. I can't access the Reply and Defence to Counterclaim anymore but I am assuming that they have admitted that there was a part-exchange. I think they accepted that by implication anyway when they reference that part-exchange as a discount in their defence. Irrespective of whether or not the part-exchange of a vehicle is deemed to be a discount rather than a deposit, it was a part-exchange nonetheless and any allowance attributed to that part-exchange by VW whether it was the book value or an enhanced value, should have been recorded as an advance payment. VW failed to do that and therefore did not comply with the prescribed terms set out in the CCAR 2010.

Argument 2:

A 'deposit' is defined in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as meaning:

any sum payable by a debtor or hirer by way of deposit or down-payment, or credited or to be credited to him on account of any deposit or down-payment, whether the sum is to be or has been paid to the creditor or owner or any other person, or is to be or has been discharged by a payment of money or a transfer or delivery of goods or by any other means

Essentially, there are multiple strands to argue based on what I have highlighted above. VW have admitted in their defence that the cash price of the vehicle was circa £42k and that the so called discount by part-exchanging your vehicle wasn't a deposit. Well, it is arguable to say that those discounts applied were essentially a part payment or a contribution by VW. Those discounts (including other discounts) were (i) credited against the cash price of the vehicle or (ii) discharged by way of transfer of your old diesel vehicle or (iii) otherwise used to reduce an amount that would otherwise have been payable under the cash price, and this line of argument would would fall into the by any other means statement.

In each of those above cases, the discount was, for all intents and purposes, a deposit. Therefore, the terminology of a 'discount' or 'Scrappage Discount' used by VW is neither here nor there because in substance, it was a deposit within the meaning of the CCA. The vehicle was used as part of the transaction to apply or otherwise reduce the amount you were required to pay (which come to think of it, could be argued as a down-payment as well).

Another point to note is that, if it was truly a discount i.e. a deduction against the retail value of the vehicle, then why did VW insert the retail price of the vehicle in the agreement and not the £33k which would have been the agreed discounted price? The inference to be taken here is that the discount was really disguised as a deposit or advance payment/contribution towards the retail price of the vehicle, otherwise VW would have set the cash price as £33k.

Argument 3:

When you agreed to enter into the contract, it was on the premise that you were told the part-exchange would be a contribution towards the total price, and there was no indication that the value of the part-exchange would be discounted. You have documents consisting of contemporaneous notes and/or documents from the dealership that referred to the part-exchange as a 'contribution' and not a discount. Therefore you were under the assumption this was a deposit contribution as per your discussions with the dealership. In any event, you will seek to rely on Section 69(1) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which states that:

If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

I won't go into issues 2/3 as they are pretty self-explanatory and you already say you have evidence to prove what you are saying is true.

Based on the above, I think the arguments I've mentioned is likely to put VW on the back foot because they are going to have to explain or persuade the judge that their 'discount' was not a deposit or some form of contribution to the cash price which was not an advance payment within the definition under the CCA or the CCAR. Not sure how they would frame that but especially in light of Argument 1 which says that the advance payment includes a part-exchange of goods. Given that you have evidence of the part-exchange, and if I recall VW have admitted in their defence you part-exchanged your old vehicle, I am struggling to see how they could argue that the part-exchange was not an advance payment that should have been recorded on the agreement.

But, lawyers are very good at producing persuasive arguments although I think VW would have to produce some wizardry to come up with a compelling argument that defeats what the law says, but that's just my own opinion and you should formulate your own view. It is possible there may be some case law out there already that has already decided this issue but I was unable to find anything specifically on this point or anywhere near it. There is a risk that your arguments fail for that reason but it's difficult to anticipate when you do not have access to specialist textbooks that might reference this point with certain cases.

Hopefully that helps with your arguments and you could use the above to formulate a reply to the defence and clarify your position. Of course if you want any feedback on your reply, you can post it up for critique.

[Unknown2023]

Rob that's amazing, I can't thank you enough for taking the time to look into this and type up such a useful long post.
I'm so glad you managed to find the definition of the advance payment, that really could be the smoking gun to overturning this in my favour and I'd have never found that!

I am frustrated that I attached the evidence for them to see and allowed them to get one step ahead and twist it in their favour, I for sure will learn the hard way with that one. Actually looking at what I sent them, they also have the dealer notes and proof of receipt of the cash deposit and courageously still decided to argue against it! But fingers crossed the judge sees past it and the arguments you have laid out will be definitive enough to put their desperate attempts to rest.

A lot to digest here so I will spend a few days reading over it carefully and drafting a reply. I will definitely post up for you to see what you think and check the format etc if you wouldn't mind.

I will also wait out a little and see what comes back from the court, I don't want to jump into an argument with them now and give them further chance to come up with a response to my points and get one over on me again.

Your efforts are much appreciated!

[R0b]

I would like to think common sense prevails here but litigation is a funny thing and it may be that VW try to make this overly complicated in what should be a relatively straightforward issue of interpretation, or lack of in VW's case.

It will be interesting to see how VW play this out and what response if any they make when you file a reply. I was thinking about this last night and reading between the lines based on their defence, I wonder if this wasn't a one-off mistake or error on their part but rather their business model and approach to how they offer the scrappage scheme, possibly in the same way other creditors do this.

If I am right, the potential ramifications for VW and others could be substantial, because it would mean that there may be hundreds if not thousands of similar agreements where they have failed to record the discount in advance payment section of the agreement. The consequence is that those consumers who have had the car repossessed thinking they had not paid 1/3 of the price could in fact have a claim against creditors and/or possibly set aside any CCJs that were obtained in the process. Another PPI situation? Unlikely to be on a scale of that size but I reckon significant enough to warrant them having a seriously vested interest in the outcome of the case.

The question remains, are they willing to risk taking this all the way to a hearing and, if a judge finds in their favour, is likely to amount to a very persuasive judgment (but not legally binding as county court decisions are not binding on other CCs) or, should they have the guts to appeal, potentially up to the Court of Appeal and god forbid the Supreme Court as a last ditch attempt, end up with a legally binding judgment against them. That could be to your advantage because VW may not want to risk the outcome of a public judgment which you could circulate to local and national newspapers if you felt like it and therefore allowing more people to become aware of their rights. In that situation, they may want to settle with you either for the full or reduced sum you a claiming, depending really on their appetite as to how far they want to go.

For you, this is where you might want to think of an absolute bottom line you are prepared to accept to settle if push comes to shove and I would expect them to get you to agree to confidentiality provisions although you are not legally required, but you can ask for them to offer more money for the privilege.

Anyway, as you say, take a couple of days rest and digest what I have said and then when you can, start preparing your response to their defence with reference to each of the paragraph numbers and we can go from there.

[Unknown2023]

I've received correspondence from the Court today. Requesting that parties send to the court - Case Management Directions.

I have no idea how to write that or what I'm supposed to send

[R0b]

Did the letter say what date the directions need to be filed?

Case management directions are a set of directions the court orders in order to manage and progress the dispute. Typically, these directions are done under fast track cases, which I've provided some links below to help about fast track cases and the type of directions that could be ordered as well as explanation of what they mean.

Essentially, you may be best off writing to the other side's legal team and explaining that the court has made an order to file Case Management Directions and it would be prudent for both sides to agree a set of directions. Given that you are an litigant in person, you may want to ask them to take the lead and provide a draft version of the directions for review and if they agree then they should allow you at least 7 days to review the draft directions for comment.

For your part, given that the value is over £10k there's a real possibility that the case will be allocated to the fast track which is usually reserved for financial claims over £10k and are more of a complex nature. You could try to argue that the case should be allocated to the small claims track because, other than the financial value of the claim, the dispute is a relatively straightforward matter. Fast track cases are more time consuming and also take up a lot of court resources and their time which isn't warranted in your case. However, I wouldn't argue any of that until you see the draft directions from the other side. If they don't respond to you at all even after following up then you might just have to draft your own using the directions link below as guidance.

I have some other thoughts around directions but I don't want to bog you down in lots of detail just yet, so maybe draft up an email based on what I suggested about seeing if they will agree to prepare the draft directions and read the below links to get you up to speed on the process and what to expect. If they come back with a response, then take it from there.

Also you should start thinking about preparing a reply to the defence to your counterclaim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...ard-directions

https://assets.publishing.service.go.../ex305-eng.pdf

[Unknown2023]

Yes, it said 28 days to file the directions. And it was sent to both parties.
That's a great idea about them taking the lead, let them pay the solicitors fees I like it!! Very smart.
Would you feel in your opinion it's better to go as a fast track or would it be better in small claims court?

Thanks for the links. I have already drafted a reply to the reply to defence. I've written it in bullet point form it just needs the formal headers and paragraphs inserting

[Unknown2023]

I guess now would also be a good time to talk to the other side about agreeing to settle outside of Court?

At what point should I now be looking to send the reply to their reply to the defence?

I don't know if this is relevant to the case but I thought it is worth mentioning. It seems VWFS are now trading as Audi Financial Services. Does this affect anything?

They have also sent me a notice of arrears through the post, under the trading name of Audi Financial Services, asking me to phone up and pay the outstanding amount from this finance agreement. Do I need to action this or shall I ignore it at this point?

Sorry for all the random questions

[R0b]

Would you feel in your opinion it's better to go as a fast track or would it be better in small claims court?

Small claims track means that legal fees are not recoverable whereas fast track means you are at risk, so small claims would be best suited to you and tactically means that it might cost VWFS more to bring the claim than defend it.

Thanks for the links. I have already drafted a reply to the reply to defence. I've written it in bullet point form it just needs the formal headers and paragraphs inserting

The format of your reply would be the same as your defence and counterclaim except you change the title to Reply to Defence to Counterclaim. Also at the first paragraph you would say something like "The Claimant joins issue with the Defence. Unless otherwise stated, all references to paragraphs are to the Defence." The first sentence that means is you take issue with what the contents of the defence and don't agree. The second sentence is self explanatory. If you want to post up your draft reply for comment feel free.

At what point should I now be looking to send the reply to their reply to the defence?

I would send it with the agreed/not agreed directions.

I don't know if this is relevant to the case but I thought it is worth mentioning. It seems VWFS are now trading as Audi Financial Services. Does this affect anything?

Probably not at this stage. They should change their claimant name to VWFS trading as Audi Financial Services if that is not listed already and you can flag that up to them on the next reply to them.

They have also sent me a notice of arrears through the post, under the trading name of Audi Financial Services, asking me to phone up and pay the outstanding amount from this finance agreement. Do I need to action this or shall I ignore it at this point?

It's probably an automated letter but I would suggest you reply back anyway and say that legal proceedings have started with regards to this matter as it is in dispute. You do not accept that you are liable to pay the amount and suggest any further letters are put on hold until the outcome of the hearing.

Just a few points about the directions:

1. If you don't get a response from the other side soonish then you should consider drafting your own directions. The court has a set of standard directions which I think some examples are contained in one of the links I sent you but for further information you can find similar directions using the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...u-instructions

2. From a tactical point of view, you want your directions to be as favourable as possible to you. I would expect the court to have a short hearing following submission from the submission of directions to question each sides directions so be prepared for that. It may be the court decides to make directions of its own volition in which case you would have to make an application to vary those directions. Other directions you may want to consider including are:

a. You want the claim to be allocated to the small claims track, for reasons I explained above. I would expect VWFS wants the case to go to fast track so a judge might order a hearing to make further inquiries and ask for your reasons. If it gets to that stage, we can put some comments together as to why you think it is suitable.

b. The hearing is stayed for a period of 30/60 days for the parties to discuss and consider settlement or, if the parties cannot agree a settlement then they should notify the court wihtin those 30/60 days to let the court know they wish to proceed. The purpose behind this is the assumption that after you file your reply, your counterclaim becomes much clearer that VWFS are going to have a bit of a struggle. Just as an aside, I did run this issue by a few other lawyers and their response was that absent any case law, you seemed to be on fairly solid ground with regards to the definition of advance payment or deposit and VWFS are taking the ****. However, you can't take that as concrete that you will be successful because it really depends on the day and how well you make your arguments.

c. Given that the primary claim you have relies on whether or not the part exchange falls within the definition of advance payment or deposit under the CCA and the 2010 Regulations, it might be sensible to have the court hear arguments on this issue as a preliminary point. Essentially, the court would make a ruling with regards to that point without the need for it to be heard at the hearing. The obvious benefit to this is that neither side incurs significant costs by spending a lot of time preparing for the case, drafting witness statements, compiling disclosure documents etc. If the court were to rule in your favour, then it would be clear that your s90 defence/counterclaim is all but a formality and the only logical solution would be VWFS to enter settlement negotiations (as I see it anyway). I think there is an example of language for a preliminary point in the link I referred to at point 1 above, just search for the word 'preliminary'.

d. Requirement for the parties to file a Scott Schedule. This is basically a template that breaks down the allegations/list of issues to allow the court to understand better what needs to be adjuciated. I'm not familiar with Scott Schedules but they are relatively straight forward to create as it's just a table of summary points.

I guess now would also be a good time to talk to the other side about agreeing to settle outside of Court?

I would suggest you wait until the directions are confirmed, per my point about about suggesting you include a point about staying proceedings for a period of time to discuss settlement.