Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 12th Sep 17, 10:16 AM
    • 17Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    Parking charge - permit on show but not in bay
    • #1
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:16 AM
    Parking charge - permit on show but not in bay 12th Sep 17 at 10:16 AM
    Firstly I know its stupid but I did not appeal or reply to letters. Everyone in our new block of flats gets a ticket a week! Somone has 20! Most have said PCM are only following up the ones they appealed and not all of them so I stupidly ignored every letter I got!

    I now have two official (stamped) claim letters and I have already extended both by 14 days. I wish I saw this forum sooner! Instead, in my extra 14 days I saw a solicitor who said because I didn't have the original PCNs, he could not do anything but make an offer. I bought the lease, the signage in parking area and the letters and he did not look at any of it!

    Background of my case - 4 visitor bays were blocked off for work carried out in a new builds garden. I had my visitor permit on show and parked not in a bay, but somewhere out of the way. I received 5 tickets in total and they are taking me to court for £1,000. Since then, the landowners have increased visitor parking bays by a further 15-20 - they must have realised there was a shortage!

    I have to send my defence by this friday and don't even know if I have anything to stand on!

    Also not good, my solictor told me to make offer of half so he sent an email on my behalf saying "without accepting liability" we offer you £525. They rejected and said minimum they would accept is £800!

    Please help!!!!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DEFENCE (after advice from Coupon-Mad - thank you!)

    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation. (RED SECTION - I have read up and this claim does try to include interest and legal costs and mentions "damages" so think this is relevant for me?)

    Background
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

    4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

    5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof. (Would I include this?)
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements. (not sure about this section?)

    5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
    6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.(I can't find much information in the lease so don't think this is relevant - especially considering I am not the leaseholder - my partner is)

    7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial. (Again, signage included in pictures but don't think relevant. Or could this point link to the fact they took away spaces?)

    7. Accordingly it is denied that:
    7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
    (all relevant - but i did have my permit on show everytime)

    Alternative Claim - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
    8. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
    (last point is definitely relevant, attached pictures of signage as no sure the rest is - signage may be sufficient?)

    9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

    10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I confirm that the contents of the Defence are true.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further relevant points;
    • As Coupon-Mad confirmed, Saeed v Plustrade are relevant here ;
      "But for the interference the claimant was able to park on 13 spaces in competition with a number of other persons. At that point she was restricted to parking on 9 spaces in competition with the same number of persons. This must constitute substantial interference with the enjoyment of her right.'".
      Also to note here, once work was completed, the spaces increased to 20-25 spaces in competition with the same number of persons showing they realised the lack of spacing meant people were not able to park in the confines of a marked bay.
      (Not sure how to word this - I have amended the parking space numbers. note, not every ticket I got was due to the V bays being blocked off as shown in attachment but it was due to the lack of numbers before they increased it).
    • Not sure if there is anything else that goes in my favor?
    • Also, in case of confusion, they have taken me to court in two separate claims?? One is for 3 of the dates, and the other is for the remaining two. Is this to get more money out of me so I have to pay more legal and court fees on top of the original charge?? Or was it the court who decided to do this in two separate claims?
    Any advice welcome please! Appreciate your help so far.


    Thank you


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PICTURES WITH HXXP NOT HTTP
    Court Case 1
    hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/21kb53k.jpg

    Court Case 2
    hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/kdpks7.jpg

    Car park signage
    hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/10ehl79.jpg

    Lease (only one page I could find mentioned visitor parking)
    hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/15jdas.jpg

    Visitor bays blocked off
    hxxp://i68.tinypic.com/24meqfa.jpg

    Solitor letter 1 (letter before claim)
    hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/xbjrzn.jpg

    Solicitor letter 2 (letter before claim - NOTE they called me MR on this one, I am Ms)
    hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/2yyefjb.jpg
    Last edited by Laura Higgs 76; 12-09-2017 at 1:33 PM. Reason: Nosferautu noticed I only mentioned singular at start :-)
Page 1
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Sep 17, 10:38 AM
    • 823 Posts
    • 946 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #2
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:38 AM
    • #2
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:38 AM
    As youre new you CANNOT post "live" links to other websites. Use somehting like tinypic to host the pictures, and post "hxxp" links - so not "http", change to "hxxp" -- and we can post them properly.

    So confusion - you have ONE claim form or TWO? You said anbove "a" stamped claim form, singular, then at the bottom you say you have two?

    What does your lease state about your rights to park? Youve not told us anything on it.
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 12th Sep 17, 10:38 AM
    • 2,369 Posts
    • 2,890 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:38 AM
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:38 AM
    images can not be uploaded to the forum .......

    you need to host / upload them else where .... some where like tinypic

    you then post the url here

    when you do you will need to change the http bit to xxtp ( or any such veriation) as newbies can not post links untill they get a few posts under thier belts

    Ralph
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 12th Sep 17, 11:28 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    • #4
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:28 AM
    • #4
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:28 AM
    Thank you! I have updated the post as I did in fact receive two separate claim cases - splitting the 5 tickets up into 3 and 2 dates.

    I am really sorry I am not tech savvy at all and google results did not help to find a converter for html to hxxp or xxtp - any help would be appreciated.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Sep 17, 11:36 AM
    • 6,328 Posts
    • 8,139 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #5
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:36 AM
    • #5
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:36 AM
    Thank you! I have updated the post as I did in fact receive two separate claim cases - splitting the 5 tickets up into 3 and 2 dates.

    I am really sorry I am not tech savvy at all and google results did not help to find a converter for html to hxxp or xxtp - any help would be appreciated.
    Originally posted by Laura Higgs 76
    There is not a converter.
    Upload from your pc to somewhere like tinypic and you
    will get a URL link
    Because at the moment you can not show a link, you
    paste the link on here but use hxxp instead of http
    and someone here will convert it
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 12th Sep 17, 11:50 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    • #6
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:50 AM
    • #6
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:50 AM
    That would explain why I couldn't find it - sorry.

    All done thank you
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Sep 17, 2:17 PM
    • 823 Posts
    • 946 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #7
    • 12th Sep 17, 2:17 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Sep 17, 2:17 PM
    PICTURES WITH HXXP NOT HTTP
    Court Case 1
    http://i65.tinypic.com/21kb53k.jpg

    Court Case 2
    http://i63.tinypic.com/kdpks7.jpg

    Car park signage
    http://i64.tinypic.com/10ehl79.jpg

    Lease (only one page I could find mentioned visitor parking)
    http://i67.tinypic.com/15jdas.jpg

    Visitor bays blocked off
    http://i68.tinypic.com/24meqfa.jpg

    Solitor letter 1 (letter before claim)
    http://i64.tinypic.com/xbjrzn.jpg

    Solicitor letter 2 (letter before claim - NOTE they called me MR on this one, I am Ms)
    http://i65.tinypic.com/2yyefjb.jpg

    -----------------

    Absolutely no mileage on mr / ms confusion. Thats an irrelevancy.
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 15th Sep 17, 8:43 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    • #8
    • 15th Sep 17, 8:43 AM
    • #8
    • 15th Sep 17, 8:43 AM
    I had to submit my own defence so welcome comments and advice please. I had no help at all so please no nasty comments if I have included something I shouldn't have!

    Thanks again for the support so far.

    MY DEFENCE

    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct;

    2.1 The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
    a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
    c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
    It just states ‘parking charges’ which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    Background
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XX XXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with XXX with 1 other named driver, XXXXX, permitted to use it.

    4. It is admitted that on 18/01/2016 and 19/01/2017 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at XXXX.

    5. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

    6. It is denied that the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    7. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    7.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    7.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

    7.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s (‘IPC’) Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory;
    7.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

    8. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

    9. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.


    10. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    11. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 per ticket equaling £200 for two, to a charge of £417.32. The charge is steep considering this is not commercial land and a visitor permit was on show. The parking company should be to deter non-residents/visitors from parking. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.

    a. The Claimant has raised two separate claims which appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    b. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

    12. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

    13. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I confirm that the contents of the Defence are true.

    Last edited by Laura Higgs 76; 15-09-2017 at 8:47 AM. Reason: removed personal details - sorry!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 17, 12:46 AM
    • 51,440 Posts
    • 65,043 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 16th Sep 17, 12:46 AM
    • #9
    • 16th Sep 17, 12:46 AM
    I had to submit my own defence so welcome comments and advice please. I had no help at all so please no nasty comments if I have included something I shouldn't have!
    No nasty comments at all - that's good and based on one in the NEWBIES thread.

    This is a bit buried:

    11 The Claimant has raised two separate claims which appears to be an added cost
    ...so make sure you repeat that point clearly at DQ stage, then again, once it is allocated to your local court (repeat it like a stuck record until a Judge does something to merge or strike out the claims).

    At each stage of paperwork from now on, attach a covering letter telling the court about the abuse of process and waste of the courts time and your Defence costs, asking the Court to strike out one of the claims/vacate one hearing if two are set, or in the alternative, make an order of the court's own volition to avoid wasted resources, requiring that the Claimant re-files the claim with full particulars as one single claim, also evidencing on what basis the Claimant believes there is a cause of action and how they believe they are able to override the rights and easements and peaceful enjoyment of residents, without being a party to the lease.

    This sort of thing needs to go into your Witness Statement later:
    Everyone in our new block of flats gets a ticket a week! Someone has 20!
    ...because you want the Judge to see the PPC scam protection racket for what it is.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 28th Sep 17, 1:07 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76

    ...so make sure you repeat that point clearly at DQ stage, then again, once it is allocated to your local court (repeat it like a stuck record until a Judge does something to merge or strike out the claims).

    At each stage of paperwork from now on, attach a covering letter telling the court about the abuse of process and waste of the courts time and your Defence costs, asking the Court to strike out one of the claims/vacate one hearing if two are set, or in the alternative, make an order of the court's own volition to avoid wasted resources, requiring that the Claimant re-files the claim with full particulars as one single claim, also evidencing on what basis the Claimant believes there is a cause of action and how they believe they are able to override the rights and easements and peaceful enjoyment of residents, without being a party to the lease.

    This sort of thing needs to go into your Witness Statement later:

    ...because you want the Judge to see the PPC scam protection racket for what it is.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks so much! I finally got this response from Gladstones today;
    " Dear Mr XXX **STILL ADDRESSING ME AS MR**

    Parking Control Management (Uk) Limited
    -v-
    Mr XXX

    We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.

    Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

    This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

    You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.


    Yours sincerely

    Molly"

    Also attached was the following covering letter;
    REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DIRECTION
    We kindly request that the Court send the N159 form (attached) to the Defendant for their consideration and, upon the Defendant consenting to the case being heard on the papers alone, the Judge makes the following direction;
    “The matter will be considered on paperwork without a hearing. The parties attendance is not required and the Judge will determine the matter based upon the documents and evidence supplied and any written representations received.”

    As well as attaching the following directions questionnaire;
    page 1 - hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/2jdkg2u.jpg

    page 2 - hxxp://i66.tinypic.com/t5t4si.jpg

    page 3 - hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/30dktow.jpg

    Questions please;
    1. Do I want them to do it based on the papers only? I guess I don't?
    2. How do I respond to say I do or don't? I assume I wait for the court to send me the DQ in the post?
    3. They have requested it to be in their court if it isn't based on papers - how can I reject this (always thought was in defendant's court)
    4. I am confused that they have only sent me one email and it only referred to one of the claims (not both)? (Interestingly the bigger one?)
    5. Is it best once sending back the DQ to attach a cover letter to the judge to get the two cases merged? (also including.. that "the Claimant re-files the claim with full particulars as one single claim, also evidencing on what basis the Claimant believes there is a cause of action and how they believe they are able to override the rights and easements and peaceful enjoyment of residents, without being a party to the lease." as stated above?)

    Thanks so much for your support so far!


    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 28th Sep 17, 1:27 PM
    • 823 Posts
    • 946 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Covered in the newbies thread I thought, OR else EASILY found by doing simple search on Gladstones special directions

    No, you want a hearing in person of course. Papers means you do not get chance to object to the lies they put in their bundle.
    2) This is DEFINITELY covered in newbies thread - should be your first port of call, then doing a search, THEN asking quesitons - you use your own N180, either the printed one the court sends or simply down;load it.
    3) You simply state as per the CPR (cant reclall) you request the defendants home court, as the defendnat is an individual
    4) Who knows, the other might be in the pile to do. they dont read anything
    5) Yes, every single time you communicate to the court you ask the second claim to be either STRUCK or MERGED with the larger. there is no need to waste the courts time holding two hearings for essentially one case.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 28th Sep 17, 1:56 PM
    • 1,686 Posts
    • 3,086 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    no need to waste the courts time holding two hearings for essentially one case.
    ..where the facts in dispute are essentially the same. [Res Judicata]
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 5th Oct 17, 1:51 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    Thanks!

    So I have followed the guidelines and have highlighted questions I have in red please;

    A1 - no to mediation service
    B - My details *can the address be different to the registered address of the car?*
    C1 - Yes to small claims
    D1 - put down my local county court
    D2 - No to expert advice
    D3 - *Would this be 1 or should I get people in the flat block to provide witness statements to support the fact this is a scam etc? Or can it still be one but I can have this as evidence?*
    D4 - no holidays booked, no to interpreter

    **I have only just received my DQ in the post, and have not received the N159 form from the claimant, via the county court - I was going to print this off and send along with my DQ and covering letter - please advise if I should hold fire until I receive it in the post or whether this is ok**
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For my cover letter would you propose something like this - how do I address them etc? Thank you!

    Dear County Court Business Centre

    Please find my Directions Questionnaire attached along with the N159 form with my opposition of having this claim based on papers alone. Additionally, as per the CPR, I also request the claim is dealt with at the defendant’s home court, as the defendant is an individual.


    I have two separate claims XXXX and XXXX, and these roboclaims are an abuse of the process and are a waste of the court's time and resources where the facts in dispute are essentially the same [Res Judicata]. This also appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.


    I ask the court to strike out one of the claims, or in the alternative, make an order of the court's own volition to avoid wasted resources, requiring that the Claimant re-files the claim with full particulars as one single claim, also evidencing on what basis the Claimant believes there is a cause of action and how they believe they are able to override the rights and easements and peaceful enjoyment of residents, without being a party to the lease. This would also allow me to provide a full defence as the Particulars of Claim, in both cases, fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

    Kind Regards
    Miss XXXXXXX


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Apologies - I kept forgetting to go back to the Newbies thread. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I could not find guidance on cover letters etc. Thank you!

    *NOTE - I received the same email from the claimant for the other claim a day later. Can I just respond to one claim to ask for them to be merged? Or can I essentially complete it exactly the same*
    Last edited by Laura Higgs 76; 09-10-2017 at 10:24 AM. Reason: updated my cover letter
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 5th Oct 17, 4:27 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    I keep reading about a Part 18 request in the absence of particulars of claim - at what stage is this done? Have I missed my chance? Should I do this? Thanks

    I am also worried that I have not included anything about them having evidence that I was driving - I assumed it would come under keeper liability - does this mean I can't use this as a point, as it wasn't used in my original defence?
    Last edited by Laura Higgs 76; 09-10-2017 at 10:25 AM.
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 10th Oct 17, 12:46 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    Any guidance would be much appreciated please as this is due by 18th October so I realistically need to send this off soon. Thank you!
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 10th Oct 17, 1:58 PM
    • 642 Posts
    • 1,209 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I have two separate claims XXXX and XXXX, and these roboclaims are an abuse of the process and are a waste of the court's time and resources where the facts in dispute are essentially the same [Res Judicata]. This also appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    Res judicata (not that the Courts really use the Latin anymore) is the doctrine that a matter has already been adjudicated upon. That simply doesn't apply here. Each claim form concerns different alleged parking incidents.

    What you need to ask for is that the claims are consolidated and heard together. You should also make the Court aware that the Defendant has issued two separate sets of proceedings to pay the lower £25 Court issue fee in respect of both (a total of £50) rather than the actual fee that should apply to a dispute with a value in excess of £800, namely £60.

    The issuing of two sets of proceedings is nothing more than a device to subvert payment of the appropriate fee that is increasing use of Court resources and which is wholly inappropriate. You and the Court should not be put to the time and expense of dealing with two matters. There is good case law to the effect that claims should not proceed where the appropriate fee has not been paid.

    The appropriate draft directions (in my view) are as set out below. Ideally, you'd apply for this. However, if the Court is so minded, you may get away with a written request:

    UPON reading the letter of the Defendant dated [date]
    AND UPON the Court's Case Management Powers pursuant to CPR Parts 3.3 and 3.4
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:

    1. Claim numbers XXXXXXX and YYYYY be consolidated and heard together.

    2. UNLESS the Claimant o pay the balance of the appropriate Court fee, namely £10.00 within 14 days of this Order, the claim be struck out.

    3. UNLESS the Claimant do file and serve within 14 days of this Order a fully particularised Amended Particulars of Claim in respect of all matters giving rise to Parking Charges, to include details of the terms of any alleged contract between the Claimant and Defendant and any alleged contract entitling the Claimant to issue parking charges, the claim be struck out.

    4. The Defendant do have permission to file and serve an Amended Defence, such Defence to be filed within 14 days of the Amended Particulars of Claim.

    5. The Parties may apply to set aside or vary this Order within 7 days of service.
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 10th Oct 17, 2:06 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    Res judicata (not that the Courts really use the Latin anymore) is the doctrine that a matter has already been adjudicated upon. That simply doesn't apply here. Each claim form concerns different alleged parking incidents.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    Thank you! I will forget this quote, I must have misunderstood how to use it.

    What you need to ask for is that the claims are consolidated and heard together. You should also make the Court aware that the Defendant has issued two separate sets of proceedings to pay the lower £25 Court issue fee in respect of both (a total of £50) rather than the actual fee that should apply to a dispute with a value in excess of £800, namely £60.

    The issuing of two sets of proceedings is nothing more than a device to subvert payment of the appropriate fee that is increasing use of Court resources and which is wholly inappropriate. You and the Court should not be put to the time and expense of dealing with two matters. There is good case law to the effect that claims should not proceed where the appropriate fee has not been paid.

    The appropriate draft directions (in my view) are as set out below. Ideally, you'd apply for this. However, if the Court is so minded, you may get away with a written request:

    UPON reading the letter of the Defendant dated [date]
    AND UPON the Court's Case Management Powers pursuant to CPR Parts 3.3 and 3.4
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:

    1. Claim numbers XXXXXXX and YYYYY be consolidated and heard together.

    2. UNLESS the Claimant o pay the balance of the appropriate Court fee, namely £10.00 within 14 days of this Order, the claim be struck out.

    3. UNLESS the Claimant do file and serve within 14 days of this Order a fully particularised Amended Particulars of Claim in respect of all matters giving rise to Parking Charges, to include details of the terms of any alleged contract between the Claimant and Defendant and any alleged contract entitling the Claimant to issue parking charges, the claim be struck out.

    4. The Defendant do have permission to file and serve an Amended Defence, such Defence to be filed within 14 days of the Amended Particulars of Claim.

    5. The Parties may apply to set aside or vary this Order within 7 days of service.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    Does this allow me to submit an amended defence then within 14 days? I haven't mentioned the lack of evidence of who was driving which apparently is a strong point?

    Thank you so much for this! Is there somewhere I can readily find this information myself? For example the court fees I was not aware of but it is probably a strong point in my case to get the claim thrown out (I would guess?).

    How do I also request a Part 18 or does number 3 cover this where I am requesting full details of the claims?

    Lastly and sorry for a million questions, can I send both claim responses in the same envelope along with the covering letter to group them together?

    Thanks again Johnersh - appreciate the support!!
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 10th Oct 17, 2:31 PM
    • 642 Posts
    • 1,209 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I was proposing you write to the court with the DQ and say you are confused as to why you should have to deal with two similar matters at once - it cannot make sense. The only reason you can think of is that C is seeking to avoid proper payment of court fees (spell it out as above).

    You should also say that there is no detail in either case. You have tried to predict the issues in both the defences, but it is an impossible position to be in and you don't think that any proper positive case has been advanced.

    If the court were so minded, it may be that these matters can be best "tidied up" into a single set of proceedings.

    I leave it with you as to whether to send the draft order, because the risk is that you are, in effect, making a court application if you do that, whilst ducking payment of the fee yourself... If you did apply to Court, you'd probably get the fee back as the conduct of the claimant is poor at best.

    As matters stand and unless the court orders otherwise you need two defences and to respond to all existing timescales.

    Court fees are set out in EX50. The one stop shop for Court procedure is the civil procedure rules aka 'The CPR' (and advice from the more established posters on this forum)
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 10th Oct 17, 3:13 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    I was proposing you write to the court with the DQ and say you are confused as to why you should have to deal with two similar matters at once - it cannot make sense. The only reason you can think of is that C is seeking to avoid proper payment of court fees (spell it out as above).

    You should also say that there is no detail in either case. You have tried to predict the issues in both the defences, but it is an impossible position to be in and you don't think that any proper positive case has been advanced.

    If the court were so minded, it may be that these matters can be best "tidied up" into a single set of proceedings.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    <UPDATED - is this ok now? too much??
    Dear County Court Business Centre

    Please find my Directions Questionnaire for both claims XXXX and YYYY attached along with the N159 form with my opposition of having both claims based on papers alone. Additionally, as per the CPR, I also request the claim is dealt with at the defendant’s home court, as the defendant is an individual.

    I have two separate claims XXX and YYYY, and these roboclaims are an abuse of the process and are a waste of the court's time and resources where the facts in dispute are essentially the same. This also appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows. These two separate sets of proceedings allow the Claimant to pay the lower £25 Court fee, totalling £50, rather than the actual fee that should apply to a dispute with a value in excess of £800, namely £60. I am confused why I have to deal with two similar matters at once.

    Additionally, there was no detail in either case in order for me to file a proper defence. I tried to predict the issues in both the defences, but it is an impossible position to be in and I don't think that any proper positive case has been advanced. If the court were so minded, it may be that these matters can be best "tidied up" into a single set of proceedings.

    UPON reading the letters of the Claimant dated [28th September 2017 and 29th September 2017]
    AND UPON the Court's Case Management Powers pursuant to CPR Parts 3.3 and 3.4
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    1. One claim is struck out
    2. OR in the alternative, Claim numbers XXXXXXX and YYYYY be consolidated and heard together.
    2. UNLESS the Claimant pays the balance of the appropriate Court fee, namely £10.00 within 14 days of this Order, both claims be struck out.
    3. UNLESS the Claimant do file and serve within 14 days of this Order a fully particularised Amended Particulars of Claim in respect of all matters giving rise to Parking Charges, to include details of the terms of any alleged contract between the Claimant and Defendant and any alleged contract entitling the Claimant to issue parking charges, the claim be struck out.
    4. The Defendant do have permission to file and serve an Amended Defence, such Defence to be filed within 14 days of the Amended Particulars of Claim.
    5. The Parties may apply to set aside or vary this Order within 7 days of service.
    Kind Regards
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    I leave it with you as to whether to send the draft order, because the risk is that you are, in effect, making a court application if you do that, whilst ducking payment of the fee yourself... If you did apply to Court, you'd probably get the fee back as the conduct of the claimant is poor at best.

    As matters stand and unless the court orders otherwise you need two defences and to respond to all existing timescales.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    So if I send this I could be charged £60 to get the two claims put into one? But I can claim this back?

    I am ensuring I respond to each case etc (I am just copying the same for each). BUT, can I send responses to both DQ together with one cover letter? Or is it better to respond separately with the same cover letter on each?

    Thanks again!!
    Last edited by Laura Higgs 76; 10-10-2017 at 3:52 PM.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 10th Oct 17, 6:36 PM
    • 642 Posts
    • 1,209 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I would send separate letters to avoid the Court staff assuming that the documents were duplicates of one another (which at a glance they may appear to be).

    So if I send this I could be charged £60 to get the two claims put into one? But I can claim this back?
    No. You may wish to think about making an application to Court to have the two claims consolidated and to request that proper particulars are prepared. That will cost £100, but if you win (and I suspect you would, given the provisions of the CPR) then you would likely get it back. The application would be done on the papers without a hearing, so there are no hearing costs. If you were successful (i) they would be put to the expense of preparing the case properly; (ii) you would be fighting 1 consolidated case not 2; (iii) you would have greater clarity much earlier, before witness statements and the opportunity to revise the Defence accordingly; (iv) the Claimant would probably be ordered to pay your application costs given that their pleading is defective.

    As I say above, it depends whether you can afford the risk in the context of the dispute and what you gain. Most forum users endeavour to ask the Court for something without lodging an application, because of the cost. Consolidation of the claims is a no-brainer. You may as well flag that they have under-paid court fees and that you are prejudiced in preparing the defence as there is scant information provided.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

79Posts Today

2,578Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I believe I can boldly go where no twitter poll has gone before https://t.co/HA0jC92gAK

  • OK I'm wilting to public pressure and there will be a star trek captain's poll at some point next week

  • I can get that. My order is 1. Picard 2. Janeway 3. Kirk. Too early to say where Lorca will end up (or would you? https://t.co/kawtCOe9RA

  • Follow Martin