Excel PCN NTK

Umkomaas

poundofcarrots wrote: »

This is probably a daft question but as I wasn't driving the vehicle at the time of this contravention, could a witness say that they were driving or will that just incriminate themselves? Will I require any witnesses?

Once legal proceedings have commenced, the RK cannot transfer liability to the driver.

You need to be very careful what you’ve said in your defence (I’ve not read back through it) before offering up the driver at this stage. You will have signed it off under a ‘Statement of Truth’.

What other witnesses do you think you need?

poundofcarrots

I don't think I would need any other witnesses but I just wanted to make sure before I said so on the DQ.

The facts of the case are that I wasn't driving the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention; it was a family member who paid for parking and incorrectly put in her VRM into the machine.

poundofcarrots

Annoyingly, I've now received a second claim form for the other PCN. This is the one for which we still have the ticket as evidence of payment, albeit with the incorrect VRM on it (for my wife's car).

Am I right in thinking that Excel should have combined these two claims into a single case as they are so similar?

Umkomaas

You need to deal with the second claim separately at this stage by acknowledging service (AOS), then draft your defence in which you add a line or two that this is a second claim from Excel for the same vehicle at the same car park with the circumstances effectively the same (all if true - I’ve not read back over the thread). You ask that the Judge orders both claims to be consolidated to save the defendant having to make two separate hearing appearances as well as saving court time.

You repeat that statement in all subsequent submissions to the court until you receive an answer. Should you receive no answer, near to your court date, write to the Judge and ask that they take a final opportunity to consolidate both cases.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your second Claim Form?

Is it the same Defendant on both Claims?

poundofcarrots

Thanks both. I have completed AOS. The claim date is 1st April 2019.

KeithP

poundofcarrots wrote: »

I have completed AOS. The claim date is 1st April 2019.

With a Claim Issue Date of 1st April, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 7th May 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Coupon-mad

Two claims? That's an abuse of process.

If so, add a point IN THE DEFENCE - AND IN THE COVERING EMAIL, SO IT ISN'T OVERLOOKED - stating this (thanks to bargepole for the basis of this wording):

The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued two current claims, numbers XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX, against the Defendant with substantially identical particulars.

The issuing of separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, and more recent authorities, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. In the event that similar matters proceed to claim issue, they must be particularised as a single claim and not as multiple separate cases, otherwise (as an extreme analogy) a builder purportedly owed money by an individual customer, could file a separate claim for each brick laid.

The facts of these cases are duplicated in every respect: Claimant, Defendant, location, parking charge breach allegation, and added unrecoverable 'debt collection' and/or 'legal' costs for each case, that are an abuse of process in themselves, given that the Claimant did not in fact ever incur such costs and that they are disallowed by virtue of the ceilings set in the POFA 2012 and the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

Multiple claims and disproportionate added costs run contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and vacate the other hearing, and the Defendants asks that these two cases be put before a Judge at the earliest opportunity - before allocation - to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant for a gross abuse of process and to strike out the imaginary and unrecoverable added 'damages/debt collector' costs, which do not exist even once, let alone multiple times per claim.

poundofcarrots

Thanks Coupon. I'm in for a hip replacement in the morning so I'll have a bit of time to sort out the defence afterwards...!

Quentin

Pointless hijacking someone's thread.

Please delete your post and if you do need advice not covered by the FAQ then start your own thread