2x Separate Court Claims from Excel

George_W12

Hi all

Firstly, wanted to say what a useful resource this site has been in dealing with PCNs over the years.

I would appreciate some advice on how to approach 2 separate court claims that I’ve received from Excel.

Both relate to a few weeks in early 2018 when I used a car park on a daily basis which was monitored by Excel. I paid in full for all parking sessions (I bought a 12 hour ticket for a much shorter stay) but Excel claim that I have breached T&Cs on 2 occasions by failing to display a valid ticket/permit (I paid online but had trouble with the web service on both days in question).

I appealed the first PCN and got nowhere so ignored the second until 2 LBCs came through. 

I responded asking for more details and submitted a SAR which I’ve received. Now 2 separate court claims have come through, which I’ve acknowledged - both have an issue date 8th July.

My questions are as follows:
-Should I challenge the fact that there are two separate court claims and if so what is the best way to go about this I.e. should I contact the court directly?

-In all correspondence Excel have failed to provide any legible copies of the T&Cs they’re referring to, only a blurred photograph of a sign which can’t be read in detail. I’ve chased Excel several times for details of the alleged contract (since receiving the LBCs) but received nothing more. The car park no longer exists so I can’t check the signs. Is there grounds to challenge that pre-action protocol has not been followed and get the cases thrown out somehow, or should I leave that to my defence?

Any advice much appreciated.

nosferatu1001

Have you read the newbies thread yet?
When you say you "had troubles", did payment actually go through? Simple yes or no. Obviously if there are online payments then you can NEVER display a permit... was the correct VRM logged, if payment went through? Because there would need to be a tie between the online payment and the car park ANPR cameras. 

Nothing about PAP not being followed will get the case struck. Its jsut not going to happen. 
You simply claim cause of action estoppel. 

George_W12

Ok, thanks. Will certainly mention that it was impossible to ‘display’ a ticket.

Yes, read the Newbies thread, and yes the payment went through (eventually).
I had trouble initially as I kept getting an error from the website - a blank screen after the payment screen. I wasn’t sure if it had through but when I checked with my bank there was no record of the authorisation, so tried again and the payment was successful. I presume the ticket was issued in the intervening time. This issue re-occurred a few times over that period hence two tickets. 

There are no ANPR cameras, it was a patrolled car park so presume they have a way to check online tickets manually. I should point out that the cash payment machine was out of action and I have photos from Excel showing this, so only phone/online payments were possible.

I can also see from Google maps that the signage in question had loads of gaffa tape specifically covering the T&Cs section of the sign and this was stuck on after my tickets were issued and replaced with paper signs on various lamp posts. So there’s clearly something wrong with the T&C wording, I just don’t know what!

KeithP

George_W12 said:

Now 2 separate court claims have come through, which I’ve acknowledged - both have an issue date 8th July.

I'll assume the Acknowledgment of Service was filed after 13th July. Please confirm - the MCOL claim history has the definitive answer.

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th August 2020 to file your Defence.

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

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

George_W12

Also, to clarify, the reg was input correctly. Excel have record of one of the payments in question but claim it was after the ticket was issued. 

They say they have no record of the other payment but my bank statements clearly show it (along with other transactions made to Excel almost every working day around the same period). I challenged this after I received the SAR details back and saw payments missing but got no further response from them - just 2 court claims

George_W12

KeithP said:

George_W12 said:

Now 2 separate court claims have come through, which I’ve acknowledged - both have an issue date 8th July.

I'll assume the Acknowledgment of Service was filed after 13th July. Please confirm - the MCOL claim history has the definitive answer.

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th August 2020 to file your Defence.

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

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Thanks Keith, yes all in order. Acknowledgements (x2) done on 16th - today.

I presume I need 2 separate defences for each incident, or do I need to get the claims combined somehow?

Coupon-mad

Do two defences - the same, using the forum template defence - but referring to the other claim number and arguing cause of action estoppel for the second one (search the forum for that and/or for Henderson as a keyword).

Do not contact the court - the CCBC (MCOL) is just a central admin centre of non-legally trained people who won't bother to do anything at the CCBC about the fact there are 2 claims in play.  You do need to keep banging on about it though at every stage, in every email to the courts, until your local Judge finaly picks the case up in their boxwork and realises that there are 2 claims, from you going on about it, and either strikes the 2nd one out, or merges them for one hearing in the end.

nosferatu1001

You dont get them conbined - you get the second struck out for cause of action estoppel. Google it. 
You will need to send in a defence to each claim. if you dont, you lose. 

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs, and in some cases, cancellation. 

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up later this year,

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these companies, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/of these Private Parking Companies.

George_W12

Hi all
Thanks again for your advice so far.
See attached draft defence which I intend to use for both claims (adapting the claim number references). I've used the template (which is excellent, thanks) and left my amendments highlighted in red for now for ease of review. 
Any feedback would be gratefully received.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine but I would add more here:

The Claimant has issued a further claim, number XXXX, against the Defendant on the same date, and with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of two 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 Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”  The Court is invited to strike out the second claim due to cause of action estoppel - or in the alternative, consolidate the two claims to be determined together at one hearing - and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for filing two abusive and exaggerated claims.