My court defence v Captial car park control

ldnpt

Not_A_Hope said:

Did you send in a copy of your original defence to the CCBC in order to defend the 2nd or 3rd identical PCNs. If so I would I assume this would have been months ago and that the CCBC would have given the PPC 28 days to confirm they wished to proceed. I have no idea why the Royal Courts of Justice would now be involved as you would normally be sent a Directions Questionnaire some time after the 28 days and the case would be assigned to your local court.

I would suggest ringing the court for an explanation and if necessary ensure you meet any deadlines to provide copies of your defence and witness statement. If you don’t you might find you lose by default. It is the responsibility of the claimants solicitor to submit ‘the bundle’ which is a combined copy of yours and their documents.

Yes everything was sent on time, I got a final demand saying I hadn't sent my DQ on time but I chased them up and they found it, this was their reply...

Your Directions Questionnaire has been processed and this claim has been transferred to the below County Court Hearing Centre for allocation. On receipt, the file will be referred to a procedural judge who will allocate the claim to track and give case management directions. Details of the judge's directions will be sent to you in a notice of allocation.  

 

If you would like any further information you can contact the local County Court Hearing Centre directly but please await the Judge's directions

Contact details:

County Court at Bromley (152)

Court House

College Road

Bromley

Kent

BR1 3PX

 

DX 98080 Bromley 2

Telephone: 020 8290 9620

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused.

That was back in August 22, seems like it was allocated to Bromley as was the first one, seems like something's not right.

ldnpt

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, you must do a WS bundle in time.  Recent good examples are by @aphex007 and @SJRRJS.

You should also have a section near the start, pointing out that this is the second of two near-duplicate claims (all but parking date. - the other claim number being xxxxxxxx) which involved precisely the same facts and arguments.  This is an abuse and a waste of the court's time because the Claimant should have advanced its entire case in the first claim.  

Henderson v Henderson ...yadda, yadda...

Thanks I'll make sure my WS is in before the 14 day deadline.

ldnpt

Hi all here's my first draft of my WS, I've had a look at the good examples put forward and tried my best has taken me all morning and feels a bit rubbish really, hopefully you can have a look and make any suggestion and hopefully it's not too bad.

P.S I haven't attached the exhibits yet but rest assured I will do before I submit, I have until the 10th

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for full wording about Henderson v Henderson (and you need the case citation number).  It's more than you've put.  There is more to say there. Copy from another thread.

Scrap all the stuff you copied from the RobertCox WS in the NEWBIES thread, including Britannia v Crosby.  That is out of date.

Instead we use the other two I linked for you earlier, and the Excel v Wilkinson transcript.

Good early section about your facts and if you have evidence photos showing the contract was offered by the Ltd company as exhibits, that should be a winning point: wrong claimant.

ldnpt

Also shall I pu the paragraph in about the BPA code of practice? I ask because Terry Szmidt T/A CAPTIAL CAR PARK CONTROL is not listed as a member, only the company on the signs are, thanks

Jenni_D

Check your spelling ... is it really CAPTIAL? Or is it CAPITAL?

ldnpt

Second draft done, looking forward to your feedback, hope this one is a bit better

Not_A_Hope

Looks good to me. Just a couple of comments:-

Several paragraphs have slightly different font sizes that need fixing for the final version.

Paras 27, 28 and 33 refer to banned recovery charges. You should amend this to indicate it is intended to ban them under the new COP. As it is enacted yet they are not yet banned.

Type in exhibit 04 also not note the PC

Good luck

Coupon-mad

Very good!

Change 'now banned' in paras 24 and 33 to 'likely to be banned'.  This is because the Judicial reviews have temporarily stalled the new Code of Practice, which is being finalised this year by the Government.

Add this as extra paragraphs at 4:

4.  The first near-duplicate claim (exact same parties, location, vehicle and extremely vaguely-pleaded cause of action) number xxxxxxxx ended with a N279 Notice of Discontinuation in September 2022 (exhibit x).  This is a legally represented Claimant who knows, or should know that filing two claims is not only an abuse of the court process (because a Claimant is required to advance their whole claim at once, not piecemeal) but also will be fully aware that the Practice Directions state the following at 38PD7, 'Discontinuance and subsequent proceedings':

"38.7 A claimant who discontinues a claim needs the permission of the court to make another claim against the same defendant if –

(a) he discontinued the claim after the defendant filed a defence; and

(b) the other claim arises out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim."

4.1.  To my knowledge, no application asking for permission to make a second claim has been filed, and it appears to me after reading the Overriding Objective, that the Court should use its case management powers to strike out this near-duplicate claim, before or at the hearing and further, to award my assessed costs on the indemnity basis, in view of the following:

4.2.  I take the point that it was entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead these various parking charges as one claim - and check the contract to ensure they had the correct Claimant - at the outset.  I consider this series of badly-pleaded duplicate claims, which also come from the wrong Claimant (see below) to be vexatious and wholly unreasonable, easily meeting the high bar in Dammerman for me to claim all my costs, including (at the court rate in 46PD5 "Litigants in person" the sum of £19 per hour of my disproportionately wasted time spent for the best part of a year, on this meritless and utterly abusive series of litigation.

4.3.  Should the Claimant now discontinue this Claim too at the eleventh hour, they are hereby on notice that I will claim all my wasted costs which I will ask the court to award without need for application (if a formal costs application is needed, the Claimant will be held liable for those costs too).  Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not "normally" apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))." 

1505grandad

Check your exhibit numbers  -  for instance:-

Paras 18 and 19 refer to xx-02 which is not the PE sign (black and yellow xx-06)

Para 21  -  refers to xx-15 which is not even included