Napier Court Claim Form

Coupon-mad

agent17 said:

Le_Kirk said:

I believe it is VCS v Percy that is referred to in the template defence, although it does not mention Saffman or Dack by name.  You will have used the older standard defence template as it was updated in March 2022 and, going back through this thread your defence was submitted before then - January this year.

Ok, I've had a quick look, can see a couple of differences, doubt it would have made any difference to Dack...

Oh and one thing that confused me during this process, I submitted a defence and then I submitted a witness statement. Seem like one and the same thing to me, did I miss something?

It's not the same thing, and each is vital.

Maybe re-read the 'Court Procedures' thread by bargepole that's linked as a resource under IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN.

And choose a different county court on your DQ this time, stating it is 'more convenient due to work'.

agent17

Is this ok for defence guys? Obviously, i've left everything before and after as per the template.

Btw, how long does it normally take for them to send DQ?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. Under the terms of the defendants commercial lease, dated February 2017, the defendant is entitled to park a vehicle in the space directly behind the defendants shop. The lease also allows provision for the purpose of loading/unloading, with no specified time limit,

Actually, the defendant is entitled to park two vehicles as the defendant leased two adjacent shops from the landlord, each entitled to one parking space. So, parking or loading/unloading in one or other of the spaces is/was permitted at all times.

It should also be noted that the parking spaces are marked out with yellow lines, clearly defining they are for the defendants shop use only. 

Furthemore, at no time did the Landlord notify the defendant of any change to parking rights and it was never a requirement that there would be any charge nor permits issued.

Finally, this is the second PCN the claimant has pursued despite being reminded in the SAR request dated 30.12.21 that any claim must be for all PCN's, and not separate claims. Reference points "Cause of action estoppel' and 'Henderson v Henderson'.

Coupon-mad

If you lost the first case don't even mention it.  Nothing about two PCNs.  

Every paragraph obviously needs a number.

Le_Kirk

agent17 said:

Btw, how long does it normally take for them to send DQ?

You haven't even submitted your defence yet!  The CCBC will send a copy of your defence to the claimant and they have 28 days to respond but what we won't know is when the CCBC will act and how much of a backlog there is at CCBC.

agent17

Coupon-mad said:

If you lost the first case don't even mention it.  Nothing about two PCNs.  

Every paragraph obviously needs a number.

When should I mention estoppel & Henderson v Henderson? I thought that would be a reason to throw it out?

KeithP

agent17 said:

Coupon-mad said:

If you lost the first case don't even mention it.  Nothing about two PCNs.  

Every paragraph obviously needs a number.

When should I mention estoppel & Henderson v Henderson? I thought that would be a reason to throw it out?

If you have already lost one case, why on earth would you want to use cause of action estoppel citing that earlier case?

Coupon-mad

Exactly...

agent17

Fruitcake said:

Yes, mention both Henderson v Henderson and cause of action estoppel. I suggest you also pick a different court in the hope you get a different judge.

KeithP said:

agent17 said:

Coupon-mad said:

If you lost the first case don't even mention it.  Nothing about two PCNs.  

Every paragraph obviously needs a number.

When should I mention estoppel & Henderson v Henderson? I thought that would be a reason to throw it out?

If you have already lost one case, why on earth would you want to use cause of action estoppel citing that earlier case?

Fruitcake said mention it and choose different court but you say do not mention because I lost first case?

Ok so I don't understand it then, please help this thicko get his head round it lol.

I thought it meant I couldn't be claimed against twice? I mean what's the point of requesting all claims be made together rather than individually in the SAR request if it's a simple as they ignore that, and then I can't mention it because I lost the first case?

How and when I could have brought estoppel to anyone's attention?

Very confused...

Coupon-mad

If you mention it, the Claimant will put two and two together and point out to the Judge that they've already won a case with mirror facts and how dare you try to defend another case expecting a different outcome?

agent17

Coupon-mad said:

If you mention it, the Claimant will put two and two together and point out to the Judge that they've already won a case with mirror facts and how dare you try to defend another case expecting a different outcome?

I didn't know who the driver was last time, this time it was me driving and I was loading/unloading.

Regardless, what was the point of requesting all tickets be claimed against first time rather than individually in the first SAR request? If I'm not allowed to mention estoppel now, when would it ever be allowed/sensible to be mentioned?