DCBLegal/CCPC County Court

FineFighter

Yep I had noticed that.
I've drafted a CPR 31.14 request for all the information on which they are planning to rely, and intend to send this tomorrow.
Contemplating sending separate letters/adding to this one regarding the double recovery fake £70 (and on what authority they are adding this),and cause of action estoppel given they are taking me to court twice for what should've been a single case.

These two points will also be added to my defences but want to put as much pressure on them at this stage as possible and hopefully have some ammunition in front of the court when they inevitably dodge the questions. 

D_P_Dance

Have you read excel  Wilkinson?

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

KeithP

FineFighter said:

I've drafted a CPR 31.14 request for all the information on which they are planning to rely, and intend to send this tomorrow.

Don't bother with that.

If you were to read CPR 31 you would find that the first point in that Part is...

Scope of this Part
31.1
(1) This Part sets out rules about the disclosure and inspection of documents.
(2) This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track.

I.e. not applicable to the small claims track.

FineFighter

KeithP said:

FineFighter said:

I've drafted a CPR 31.14 request for all the information on which they are planning to rely, and intend to send this tomorrow.

Don't bother with that.

If you were to read CPR 31 you would find that the first point in that Part is...

Scope of this Part
31.1
(1) This Part sets out rules about the disclosure and inspection of documents.
(2) This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track.

I.e. not applicable to the small claims track.

I was reading that given this had been applied online, it won't have been allocated to small claims yet, hence why CPR 31.14 still valid. But I of course bow to your superior knowledge and experience.

FineFighter said:

Contemplating sending separate letters/adding to this one regarding the double recovery fake £70 (and on what authority they are adding this),and cause of action estoppel given they are taking me to court twice for what should've been a single case.

These two points will also be added to my defences but want to put as much pressure on them at this stage as possible and hopefully have some ammunition in front of the court when they inevitably dodge the questions. 

Is there any merit to raising the other points to the DCBLegal - ie double recovery and cause of action estoppel - or is this better off just dealt in the defence?
As I said, I want to try and put pressure on them and make them wonder whether I'm worth the hassle lol

D_P_Dance

As I said, I want to try and ...  make them wonder whether I'm worth the hassle lol

IMO you are ascribing to them a level of intelligence which they do not have.

Umkomaas

You wouldn't want to have the case heard anywhere other than the small claims track.  Any other carries the potential for swingeing costs if it goes wrong!

You can send them whatever you want to try to get them to believe you're to difficulty to handle. Whether they will respond will be entirely their decision. 

Have you read the other Terry Szmidt case reported today, with a successful outcome?  Anything there to help you?

FineFighter

I didn't realise there were other Terry Szmidt cases that had reached court.... when I'd previously searched CCPC, all I found was new invoices and POPLA appeals. Will have another look now, thanks for the heads up! 

Umkomaas

FineFighter said:

I didn't realise there were other Terry Szmidt cases that had reached court.... when I'd previously searched CCPC, all I found was new invoices and POPLA appeals. Will have another look now, thanks for the heads up! 

@Jsalomonuk's thread. It's a set aside of a CCJ, but there'll be snippets that may help. With such an unusual surname, Terry Szmidt cases should be reasonably easy to find via the forum search engine. 

FineFighter

Thank you for the heads up, I've looked through @Jsalomonuk's thread and have noticed something potentially interesting. It looks like they've learnt from the ballsup they've made there in which they named the wrong creditor. So on this occasion, they've named "Capital Car Park Control" but this company no longer seems to exist, with ol' Terry running CCPC Ltd now. Given this company no longer exists, is it still grounds to argue that assignment of debt should have occurred to a company that does exist?
(also mixed in with this that Terry Szmidt is a sole trader and arguably should've had his name on the parking signs, not the company name?)

I hope that makes sense!

Umkomaas

Given this company no longer exists, is it still grounds to argue that assignment of debt should have occurred to a company that does exist?

Jeez, that's some question for a forum dealing with basic parking charges. It's very definitely a legal question.  There are a couple of legals who rotate around here, so you might get a steer, there's also the LegalBeagles forum where more lawyerly types hang out. 

Beyond my pay grade I'm sorry!