Court Claim form did not receive and not able to Acknowledge receipt of claim online please HELP

patient_dream

I have just had a meeting with zeljko

I am reading all the papers over the weekend

As you are aware, there are two seperate claims which amount to over £1000.  There is an enitity problem plus the usual fake add-ons

MY QUESTION TO YOU GUYS IS THIS ...

zeljko is the registered keeper of two cars hence two seperate claims. BWLegal refused to join both claims together  because of two individual cars which are both registered with the DVLA
to zeljko
What are your thoughts please guys and Coupon-mad

The first case being friday 24th Nov at 10am and the second, an identical case on the 1st December

For the sceond case he needs to send in his WS by next week.
I am meeting him again next tuesday to discuss his crib sheet for the judge and his costs schedule

Both cases go back to lockdown whereby the virtually non existent signs required registration within the pub car park when the pub was closed due to lockdown

The BWLegal CLAIM is sparce and the reason given ... it was a copy and paste from MSE ???

Le_Kirk

Two different cars?  Yes
Two different keepers? No
Who is being taken to the hearing?  The cars or the keeper?  No reason, except it suits the claimant, to have two separate cases.
IANAL

UncleThomasCobley

Where the defendant is being sued for two identical alleged debts by the same claimant, and the only difference is that the defendant is the registered keeper of two different cars, it can be argued that the cause of action is essentially the same. If the claimant is refusing to have both PCNs heard at the same hearing, the defendant will need to raise this issue with the court.

The defendant's argument for cause of action estoppel in this case is a valid one.

patient_dream

Thanks guys, any other thoughts ?

Johnersh

The defendant's argument for cause of action estoppel in this case is a valid one.

Save that the first one hasn't yet been determined.

As I see it, the point really bring made at this stage is that the cases should be tolled up together. CPR 1 is your friend in relation to that. The parties should address matters in a manner proportionate to costs and use of court resources.  That should include the hearing together of the similar fact claims at the same hearing.

What does the sign say *exactly*? The contract could in theory be impossible to perform and void ab initio if D is required to use a terminal that the PPC no longer offers to the public.

patient_dream

Johnersh said:

The defendant's argument for cause of action estoppel in this case is a valid one.

Save that the first one hasn't yet been determined.

As I see it, the point really bring made at this stage is that the cases should be tolled up together. CPR 1 is your friend in relation to that. The parties should address matters in a manner proportionate to costs and use of court resources.  That should include the hearing together of the similar fact claims at the same hearing.

What does the sign say *exactly*? The contract could in theory be impossible to perform and void ab initio if D is required to use a terminal that the PPC no longer offers to the public.

Thanks for replying Jonnersh

Sadly, the signs at the time during lockdown were not really visible and of course the pub was closed.
I went to the pub today and the signs are still hardly visible. 

I will ask zeljko to reply, thanks

zeljko

Johnersh said:

The defendant's argument for cause of action estoppel in this case is a valid one.

Save that the first one hasn't yet been determined.

As I see it, the point really bring made at this stage is that the cases should be tolled up together. CPR 1 is your friend in relation to that. The parties should address matters in a manner proportionate to costs and use of court resources.  That should include the hearing together of the similar fact claims at the same hearing.

What does the sign say *exactly*? The contract could in theory be impossible to perform and void ab initio if D is required to use a terminal that the PPC no longer offers to the public.

Hi Johnersh,
Thank you for assisting us.

This is a sign :


and small letters:


And from Claimant WS :



Not sure should I add to my 2nd WS that Britannia Parking has installed new signs after my complains. 

Dec 2020



Nov 2023

Coupon-mad

Your main point is the one already identified: that the agent purporting to be operating there and offering the 'contract' has no landowner authority because a different legal entity does.

zeljko

Hi,
I have a Hearing Date on 24/11/2023 for 1st claim. WS sent and also received from Britannia Parking.
But just got email from Britannia Parking as below:

Dear Sirs
Claim No:  XXXXXXXX
Parties: Britannia Parking Group Limited t/a Britannia Parking - v - XXXXXX
Hearing Date: 24/11/2023
We refer to the above matter.
We attach the Case authorities that the Claimant’s advocate will be seeking to rely upon at the forthcoming hearing.
A copy of the same has also been served on the Defendant and the Defendant is copied into this email.
Kind Regards,

Attachment in link below:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v3m0x6d5kw8qptnhr00du/Case-authorities-Chan-and-Day-Judgements.PDF?rlkey=wd4npypzgt8mr0c3c4z36ydra&dl=0

Looks like they want to argue against mine point under "The claim should be struck out" - Ming Tak Chan Judgment

Can they supplied additional documents after WS was served?

Any advice please?

Coupon-mad

Yes they can supply a Case Authorities page and/or a skeleton argument.  Did they also attach a skelly?

Very interesting to see that second case and I feel sad for Mr Day that his unlucky timing of hearing didn't come AFTER Chan!  He'd have won if so.

What they are saying is that there are 2 conflicting appeal decisions by DJ Murch this year.

You can observe:

- the first one, Day, was an appeal against something completely different: a point of law about the validity of the POFA, and it failed because the appellant was driving so the POFA was neither here nor there. Wasted appeal.  Only as an aside, HHJ Murch looked at the 'brief' POC and made obiter comments saying that he thought on balance that those basic POC were acceptable, and he moved on to consider the actual appeal. As further context, he knew from the papers that the appellant was the driver and HHJ Murch remarked that his defence went into detail (i.e. Mr Day knew the allegation and responded to it).  This point was not pressed by the appellant who used a lay representative not a barrister, and wasn't the reason for, nor focus of, that appeal (May 2023).

- in CEL v Chan in July 2023, two months later, the appeal was all and ONLY about this particular CPR compliance issue (inadequate POC) and a barrister, Mr Yamba, went into forensic detail about the fact that boilerplate POC that fail to even state what the alleged breach was.  The transcript shows that with this helpful level of scrutiny from a barrister on this single point, HHJ Murch was persuaded that POC that fail to set out the allegation of breach, fail the CPRs.

 -------

P.S.  Not for your hearing but I'm musing:

This adds weight to motorists' call for a bespoke private parking PAP, to stop cases even getting to court (default CCJ in Mr Chan's case) where the motorist keeper doesn't know the first thing about it. In many cases, a motorist (whether driver, keeper or hirer) has had no reminders or photo evidence in the pre-action stages and not even the POC tell the Defendant what it is all about, whether the parking firm are relying on POFA Schedule 4, what the breach even was (and sometimes there are multiple PCNs which all need evidencing and pleading better, in fairness to recipient keepers in particular who may never have been to the location and might even be a company fleet.  Not that there is any obligation on the keeper to name the driver: see VCS v Edward re that point of law).