Dcbl letter before claim stage

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

It will proceed until and unless a Judge puts an end to it.  Cause of action estoppel is correct but not a magic wand that just kills a claim without a Judge looking at it (a bit later on).

 or is cause of action el stoppel not guaranteed? 

I remind you of my earlier answer quoted above. When I said 'later on' that would possibly be at hearing stage, or when the Judge reads your witness statement and evidence bundle, which you haven't mentioned doing yet.

You have a hearing date so that letter gives you your WS and evidence deadline.

Best examples recently are by @wobs2k and the first WS by @ricky_balboa

You will obviously be starting your WS by referring yet again to the other claim and AGAIN stating that 'cause of action estoppel' applies and one or other (or both) of the claims should be struck out due to this abusive harassment, using court as a weapon of harassment against consumers.

You have to say this - like a dripping tap - at every stage.  It's not a question of 'cause of action estoppel hasn't worked'.

It hasn't been considered by a Judge yet!

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

It will proceed until and unless a Judge puts an end to it.  Cause of action estoppel is correct but not a magic wand that just kills a claim without a Judge looking at it (a bit later on).

 or is cause of action el stoppel not guaranteed? 

I remind you of my earlier answer quoted above. When I said 'later on' that would possibly be at hearing stage, or when the Judge reads your witness statement and evidence bundle, which you haven't mentioned doing yet.

You have a hearing date so that letter gives you your WS and evidence deadline.

Best examples recently are by @wobs2k and the first WS by @ricky_balboa

You will obviously be starting your WS by referring yet again to the other claim and AGAIN stating that 'cause of action estoppel' applies and one or other (or both) of the claims should be struck out due to this abusive harassment, using court as a weapon of harassment against consumers.

You have to say this - like a dripping tap - at every stage.  It's not a question of 'cause of action estoppel hasn't worked'.

It hasn't been considered by a Judge yet!

Ok that makes sense, thank you.

how can I find the example of the evidence and whiteness statement? In the letter I received from the court it says to provide these via email so that is my next step and then just wait and see what happens at hearing I guess. 

Coupon-mad

I gave you the links to two. Their names are hyperlinks. It needs just one extra click on their profile to find their discussions, 

This forum works best when we don't link directly to a post.  Better that posters learn how the forum and profiles work, get there and find the bit we mean, because it means you can do so again and find relevant posts for yourself more easily as part of your research.

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

I gave you the links to two. Their names are hyperlinks. It needs just one extra click on their profile to find their discussions, 

This forum works best when we don't link directly to a post.  Better that posters learn how the forum and profiles work, get there and find the bit we mean, because it means you can do so again and find relevant posts for yourself more easily as part of your research.

Ok no problem. So I just need to send a whiteness statement now to the court and the claimant? Or should I wait for theirs and their evidence to come to me first? 

The only issue is I don’t really know how to contest this because it was that long ago I can not remember, all I know is I didn’t receive any tickets or letters I remember. All I can really statement is about abuse of process and added unlawful costs? And the fact the amounts they requested differed from their recent letters to me compared to their emails. Also the fact they tried to charge twice for the same pcns on two occasions which I had to point out. 

I just don’t want to say all this in the WS and seem like I’m waffling or not helping myself 

Coupon-mad

Probably the same as at least one of the 2 examples I suggested you read, plus maybe half of any other live court thread you read.

No-one remembers an old event. This is nothing new. Copy similar threads.

It is easier than you think.  This forum is like a book.  A resource to read and learn from, where every day us Groundhog day because we are asked the same thing all the time.

Read plenty of other court threads on the forum that are at your stage (just go looking - we read every thread every day and I can promise you there are literally dozens during May, at WS stage).

Please don't just the 2 threads I mentioned.  Go looking and you'll see what I mean.

Cp100

Was just looking through emails received from dcb legal and they confirm they duplicated 2 of the pcns after I had noticed it so they removed the two which resulted in 3 being left (on this claim) 

So in one email they state I owe them £480 and then in other emails they state I owe them £320. Should I provide this as evidence to the court and would this help my case? 

Plus they then filed another claim against me so I feel like they’ve completely messed this whole process up and the figures not only don’t match up in the emails but they also do not tally up to the letters either. I also have received 3 different letter of claim from them for the two claims (not sure if this matters) 

Also what they are trying to claim now for each one is £857 on the claim with 3 pcns and £454 on the other one with 2 pcns (this one seems to tally up) but the claim with 3 pcns seems to be drastically more, is this right? Even minus the court and solicitor fee it’s a lot more. Could be the possible reason the court are awaiting more information on this one? 

Coupon-mad

Was just looking through emails received from dcb legal and they confirm they duplicated 2 of the pcns after I had noticed it so they removed the two which resulted in 3 being left (on this claim) 

So in one email they state I owe them £480 and then in other emails they state I owe them £320. Should I provide this as evidence to the court and would this help my case? 

Plus they then filed another claim against me so I feel like they’ve completely messed this whole process up and the figures not only don’t match up in the emails but they also do not tally up to the letters either. I also have received 3 different letter of claim from them for the two claims (not sure if this matters) 

Also what they are trying to claim now for each one is £857 on the claim with 3 pcns and £454 on the other one with 2 pcns (this one seems to tally up) but the claim with 3 pcns seems to be drastically more, is this right? 

We agree, a complete mess up. It all matters!

None of those figures make sense, and two PCNs can't result in a claim over £450, that's madness!

So, I would certainly include all of this in your WS!

It is an appalling abuse of process to bring more than one 'similar PCN/duplicate-facts' claim (all PCNs should have been on one claim) and as for actually counting one twice - real duplication - wow?!

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

Was just looking through emails received from dcb legal and they confirm they duplicated 2 of the pcns after I had noticed it so they removed the two which resulted in 3 being left (on this claim) 

So in one email they state I owe them £480 and then in other emails they state I owe them £320. Should I provide this as evidence to the court and would this help my case? 

Plus they then filed another claim against me so I feel like they’ve completely messed this whole process up and the figures not only don’t match up in the emails but they also do not tally up to the letters either. I also have received 3 different letter of claim from them for the two claims (not sure if this matters) 

Also what they are trying to claim now for each one is £857 on the claim with 3 pcns and £454 on the other one with 2 pcns (this one seems to tally up) but the claim with 3 pcns seems to be drastically more, is this right? 

We agree, a complete mess up. It all matters!

None of those figures make sense, and two PCNs can't result in a claim over £450, that's madness!

So, I would certainly include all of this in your WS!

It is an appalling abuse of process to bring more than one 'similar PCN/duplicate-facts' claim (all PCNs should have been on one claim) and as for actually counting one twice - real duplication - wow?!

I’m guessing they’re coming up with those amounts as they’re adding 5 years worth of interest at 8% per year. Which they should be allowed to just sit on and then come after it 5 years later. 

It was actually two pcns duplicated, not even just one (facepalm)

Coupon-mad

I mean if a Judge doesn't consider this wholly unreasonable conduct, there is no hope for the courts!

Cp100

This is what I have currently put together for my WS, please advise if anything should be altered or included. Thank you

1. I am the Defendant in this matter. I am unrepresented and have no experience with Court proceedings. I trust the court will excuse my inexperience if I have not set out the documents in the way that the Claimant has. I feel it is necessary at this point to highlight that I suffer from Dyslexia and Iren’s Syndrome in addition to anxiety and depression which has been significantly raised throughout this process.

2. I make this witness statement in anticipation for the court hearing scheduled for ……. in my defence of the Claimants’ claim.

3. Please note the claimant has sent 3 letters of claim to myself, one of these had two pcns which were duplicated. I noticed this and informed them and they amended it. If I had not informed them of their mistake they would of remained unaware.

4. The claimant has filed two separate court claims against me for the same subject. In my opinion this is a complete waste of everyone’s time, especially the court and they have shown a complete lack of incompetence and abuse of process.

5. The Claimant has issued a further claim, 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  , 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.

6. The claimant has also requested I pay an extortionate amount compared to the original amount of the PCN. Not only this but the second letter of claim they sent was for one pcn, they then sent a further letter of claim for the same pcn plus another pcn. The letters combined with their emails didn’t make much sense and I felt like they were trying to force me to pay as much as possible for something I know nothing about. They have also sat on these ‘pcns’ for around 5 years and feel like they are entitled to make up whatever costs they feel along with their unlawful extra charges. 

7. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge. I believe that the Claimant has not incurred additional costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself. The Protection of Freedoms Act, Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance.  It is submitted that this is an attempt of double recovery from the Claimant, which the Court shall not uphold.

8. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number F2QZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’

9. In the Newport County Court in Case number E8GF1V7V (UK Car Park Management v Esplanade Ltd) on 24th November 2018, District Judge Grand stated ‘The claim is struck out as abuse of process. Reasons: The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which is the alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. The additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

10. In the Warwick County Court, Case No F5DP2D6Y (Premier Park Ltd v Shaw) District Judge Josephs dismissed the case as abuse of process. ‘The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis… Additionally S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires the court to consider the fairness of a contract of terms and the provision of additional charges falls into examples 6, 10 and 14 of the indicative list of unfair terms in Schedule 2 of that act. It is an absolute abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.’ 

11. The Claimant has behaved unreasonably in bringing this case against me to the Court. The Claimant’s actions and the actions of their legal representatives have brought me considerable depression and distress in the middle of a cost of living crisis this has added to it. I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching case law to prepare the defence and this witness statement. I have no intention of claiming for each and every hour spent on dealing with this claim, but will be asking for a consideration to cover some of the time spent.

12. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.