2 UKPC Court Claims Received

Parker_Peters

Thank you very much for the feedback @Johnersh, I really appreciate it.

I see what you are saying here with regards to 3.1. I am certain both claims are intended for me. The tickets were on my car and I repsonded to both of them with the UKPC appeal process thinking they would drop it because I lived there. I made no further contact other than those two single online appeal forms.

The VRMs in the particulars differ by one letter. However, there are no other vehicle details provided, make/model/colour etc. All correspondence in the last 5 years has contained that typo. I'm almost certain they have pictures of my car, so would have pictures of the correct VRM.

So are you suggesting I either push the incorrect VRM and put into doubt whether they are referring to the correct vehicle/person or accept the claim is for me and go with cause of action estoppel and Henderson v Henderson? But not both?

Personally I feel a defence using the VRM typo would be weak. They have included the PCN number in the particulars, which I responded to with the appeal process. So they have my details linked to that PCN. However, I have no idea how easy it is for them to simply claim it is a typo and proceed as normal.

Fruitcake

Personally I think a judge would look more favourably on you if you agreed that the incorrect VRM probably relates to your vehicle, and the claimant made a typo, but instead of making a separate claim they should have included it with the other one.

Parker_Peters

Thank you @Fruitcake, I am grateful for your opinion here. I too feel (although my knowledge is extremely limited) that this may be the best approach.

I have amended my defence to remove all references that question the VRM. The sections I have edited are below. All others remain the same as the last draft posted.

2.1 The Defendant has never been the registered keeper of a vehicle with the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) [REG1] as stated in the Particulars. However, the Defendant did receive a Parking Charge with the number [PCN2] as per the Particulars on a vehicle with the VRM [REG2], for which the Defendant was the registered keeper at the date and time stated in the Particulars. 

2.2 Although all correspondence received by the Defendant in relation to [PCN2] has referred to VRM [REG1], for the purpose of this Defence, the Defendant will assume the VRM contains a typographical error and this claim is in fact issued in relation to VRM [REG2].

 

3.1 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. 

The Claimant has issued two claims with the same Issue Date and identical Particulars with the exception of the Parking Charge number and issue date.  

Claim number CLAIM1 - relates to a PCN issued on 12/07/2017;

Claim number CLAIM2 - relates to a PCN issued on the 12/06/2017, relying on the same facts.

 

3.3. 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.”

 

3.4. 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''.

3.5 The Claimant filing the first claim and failing to advance the whole case, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact Parking Charges against the Defendant. The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same.  The Defendant invites 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.

 

4. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, however, the defendant is unable to recall who the driver was at the time and date specified in the Particulars.

Parker_Peters

An update on this case. I am very pleased to say that both claims ended with a positive outcome (for me).

Claim 1: (Typo in the VRM)

After I had submitted my defence the claimant requested proof that I did not own the car with the VRM with the typo that was similar to that for the car I did own. I made a DVLA subject access request. They responded by stating that they could not supply any information becasue the VRM does not exist and I sent that information directly to the claimant. This claim was not followed up any further. The deadline to receive confirmation that they were proceeding with the claim passed and I have not heard anything since.

Claim 2: 

I received confirmation that this case was proceeding and filled out the Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) according to the details on this forum. I scanned the form (using my phone) and sent it digitally. I received confirmation by post, instructing me to wait for directions from the County Court. In early February I received a letter from the County Court stating that the case had been struck out, the details of which pretty much stated in legal terms that the claim and in particular the particulars were essentially male bovine excrement. 

I will post the exact wording below in case anyone, those on this forum that assist the defendants, or the defendants themselves can get any benefit from this case.

UPON considereing the file and Directions Questionnaires for purposes of Allocation and directions

AND UPON noting that:

1. The Particulars of Claim are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; or (c) the alleged loss

2. Neither the Court nor the Defendant are able, on the basis of the Particulars within the Claim Form, to understand properly and specifically what case is being pursued

3. The Particulars appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action"

4. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form

5. In the opinion of the Court it ought to have been entirely possible to deal with the matters outlined above within that character limit but for the fact that generic wording appears to have been applied

6. In the event that it was or is impossible to properly set out the key parts of the claim within the character limit then it was incumbant upon the Claimant to file and serve separate Particulars of Claim within 14 days per 16PD.3

7. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"

AND UPON no further particulars having been filed

AND UPON it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset

AND UPON the claim being for a very modest sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Court considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) to order further particulars, to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation

IT IS ORDERED that:-

1 The Claim is struck out

2 Because this Order was made without a hearing any party affected may apply within seven days of service of the Order on that party for it to be set aside or varied

END

The particulars in question (types as they appear on the claim form):

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle [VRM] at [Address] 2. The PCN details are [Date]. [PCN number] 3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s). 4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £160 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. 2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment. 3. Costs and court fees.

END

@Johnersh for their assistance with my case.

I hope this case may help assist other with their cases going forward, like the ones I read to help with mine.

Coupon-mad

Great stuff.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Second case exactly the same as this one:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79804326/#Comment_79804326

Was the Judge who signed off that Order, the same DJ Sprague at Luton Court?

Taiko

I was thinking the same as soon as I read that, but it'd be great if actually it's a completely different judge at a completely different court. Might suggest some kind of guidance being issued? 

B789

Surely that order can be adapted into a defence for most of the roboclaim PoCs that are issued so often?

Coupon-mad

It has already been used in a defence or WS - very useful wording!

Johnersh

I didn't do anything very much, so kudos to the o/p.

This is the correct application of the rules. Not all judges would see it that way, but it must be correct. A low word count is not an excuse for shoddy particulars but rather the watermark for when you might actually need to file detailed particulars. 

So to tonight's soapbox... 

My beef has long been that rubbish particulars just lead to lots of legal argument in witness statements (and very little fact) with the result that cases become more entrenched and defendants get surprised. It should not be tolerated. 

With represented corporate entities, we should expect them to prove their case and not bring it if they can't. I do think the climate mazy have improved a little - the British gas meters farrago does reveal that the courts have been misused and there may be scope (esp in the context of default judgments) that these are further examples of stuff going through on the nod that bears much greater scrutiny.

We've got advocates telling the court that ppcs have instructed them to appeal on *every* case. By definition that means that there is no assessment of merits (or grounds) in many cases. It's a waste of time. I'd not be tolerating that as a DJ either... 

B789

I've already suggested a defence for another PoC using the wording on the court order above (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6423714). Whilst not all judges may see it that way, at least by highlighting it you are drawing their attention to it and it is there to be argued if necessary.

I know quite a few judges, either old classmates from school or family friends. Everyone from magistrates to high court judges, they are all human and have different outlooks on life. None of them are perfect. However, bringing matters to their attention, in particular attempts to distract them or failures to make them aware of some detail is paramount to getting the justice a case deserves.