Completed Case Against VCS Ltd

Nomad24

Thank you!! I've found the following which I think you refer to:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77200964#Comment_77200964

I have written separate defences for each claim, so this would of course need to be tweaked for each one. 

Can this point be put anywhere in the document?

Nomad24

This is how I've amended it for my case:

Cause of Action estoppel

Being legally represented, the Claimant knows, or should know, that by detaching or allowing to remain detached, elements of alleged debts and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. 

This Claimant has issued two claims relating to parking charges:
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to PCNs issued on 25/05/2018;
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to a PCN issued on the 05/04/2017, relying on the same facts.

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.”

In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:
(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.


The Claimant filing the first claim and failing to advance their whole case, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact parking charges against myself as Defendant.   The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same.  I invite the court to dismiss the second claim under the grounds of cause of action estoppel.  In the alternative, the Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

Coupon-mad

Put it as point #2 AND repeat it in the body of your emails that you send to the CCBC and copy in the C's solicitor (or VCS' litigation email if they filed the claims themselves).

Ask the CCBC to refer the 'duplicate facts' claims to a Judge straight away because the C should have advanced one claim only.  The CCBC won't do anything as they are clearly understaffed but ask anyway in your email attaching the defence.

Separate email for each case.

Nomad24

All done and sent! Time to read the next steps on the NEWBIES thread!! 

Will keep this thread updated, I don't think I'll get tired from thanking everyone, so thanks again for all the guidance 

Nomad24

Update: 

Received DQ via post. Filled out form as suggested in the NEWBIES thread. Also sent via email in a similar manner to the defence. 

KeithP

Nomad24 said:

Update: 

Received DQ via post. Filled out form as suggested in the NEWBIES thread. Also sent via email in a similar manner to the defence. 

Remembering to send a copy to the Claimant of course.  

Nomad24

KeithP said:

Remembering to send a copy to the Claimant of course.  

CC'd them into the email! *Thumbs up*

Nomad24

Hey all, 

After sending my DQ, VCS Ltd have decided to reply to one of the two claims. Responding to the defence email and DQ email for only one claim with:

"Good Morning,

This is one of your claims I believe.

Kind Regards"

I've just checked and I've definitely sent two defences, one for each claim as discussed above. 

Any recommendations on what to do? Should I ignore or should I respond asking for more info? The sentence is quite vague and can be taken a few ways.

Coupon-mad

I reckon they meant to send that to someone else, maybe Elms Legal?  Is there another recipient to the email?

Nomad24

Coupon-mad said:

I reckon they meant to send that to someone else, maybe Elms Legal?  Is there another recipient to the email?

I checked and there wasn't - the only recipient was myself but that makes more sense.

They actually sent a letter a few weeks ago saying ELMS was not their representative any longer.