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

zeljko

Coupon-mad said:

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). 

No, they did not attach any other document.
Should I also respond to same email chain (cc court) as per your comments or I should take this to Hearing session?

Coupon-mad

No response.  Take it to the hearing.

BUT

Please please please also find time to do this new Call for Evidence this month:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80375249/#Comment_80375249

The Committee invites evidence on:

• What the current level of delay in the County Court is

• The ways in which the County Court engages with litigants in person, and how this could be improved

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

Please tell them that private parking firms and their bulk litigators are the problem as far as small claims delays are concerned, as they dominate court lists. Parking claim numbers are rising every year and will make up about a third of all small claims in 2023, based on the 2022 figures that the MoJ divulged in the DLUHC's recent Parking Code of Practice Call for Evidence:

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence#:~:text=The%20call%20for%20evidence%20is,help%20the%20decision%2Dmaking%20process.

About half a million parking claims are now made (2023 likely figure).

The MoJ must separate parking cases with a new pre-action protocol requiring use of ADR instead of inflated debt demands and bulk litigators who want court. It should be a last resort but it's the first.

These MPs are inviting evidence not rants or opinion so we need people like you to respond, who are currently caught up in this nightmare that you are.  You have a solid case evidence to show the Committee to state that parking claims are not valid 'debt' claims.  They are speculative claims where bulk litigators are using and abusing the system.

They are exaggerated rogue claims and the whole framework needs to be removed from the inappropriate 'debt claims pre-action protocol'.  Ideally, parking cases should NEVER go to county court and should not be able to affect people's credit rating, waste Judges' time and frighten consumers, millions of times in recent years.  The ideal situation is to speak to the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities who are grappling with regulating the parking industry right now, and they are looking at live evidence as well.

The Government needs to remove parking claims from the court system.  They should be handled by an Alternative Dispute Resolution system and no parking charge should ever threaten people's credit ratings and livelihoods.

You want to change things? Please say the above, but change into your own words, attaching your own Claim Form and any other letters from the court or Claimant that you want to show them.

For example, do you think the County Court makes it clear enough that a Witness Statement is required AS WELL as a defence?  I don't!  I think it's buried in the hearing order.  So you might want to mention that too.

And the fact that BW Legal have filed two separate claims: 1st claim was issued 14th Dec 2022 and 2nd court claim 16th Dec 2022.  These should have been consolidated and been ONE claim.

Tell them what happened with each case, and show them both Claim Forms.

This Committee is your voice.

As you know, the Government is already regulating the private parking industry, so they are listening and are aware of the scourge of unfair PCNs from rogues and bulk litigators.  So you are pushing against an open door but just need to steer all those involved in the same direction.  Evidence is key. We need people to show the Committee your actual claim forms as evidence and tell them how you feel about parking claims, and that this is why the system is swamped.

Interested parties have until 14 December to make a submission to the committee.

Your evidence will make all the difference.   Please do it now before you forget.  Clicky link above.

patient_dream

zeljko ... WON TODAY IN READING COUNTY COURT
BRITANNIA / BWLEGAL

He will do a court report later

zeljko

patient_dream said:

zeljko ... WON TODAY IN READING COUNTY COURT
BRITANNIA / BWLEGAL

He will do a court report later

Hi, yes we won today for 1st Claim. We did prepare so many points to challenge claimant but judge just pickup 1st point after claimant present his case in his own WS.
It is related to entry sign to the parking. They put in their WS that there is two entrance sign :



And his picture of site P12-14:



clearing showing no entering signs installed when I parked where is white van.
Claimant tried to explain there is sign on the wall (blue dot) but again that is terms and conditions.
Judge was picking up this for 15min and ask claimant to explain this  entering signs but at the end he just said it is on judge to decide, but they believe signage was installed correctly  as per BPA practice.

I did not had chance to touch any other points.

At the end Judge just said he will dismiss this claim but asked me did I copy defence from internet.
I said I only had seek guide for this claim to fight this parking claim. He told me in future judge can dismiss my defence if he noticed it is not related to my case.

I mention about my 2nd claim with same conditions but judge said he can not do nothing about that.
Also I have asked about cost to be awarded to me but claimant said that significant time was not spent on my preparation as I have copy WS from internet. Judge said for small claims as this I should be able to proof lost of learning if not he will dismissed my request.

I don't know what Britannia will do now but we have 2nd Claim next Friday again everything same just different car plates.

patient_dream

Identical case next week, just a different number plate

Same poor signs, same lockdown due to Covid, same pub was closed to enter VRN

Coupon-mad

Well done!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

@patient_dream can you help and encourage this OP to send pics of both claim forms and both hearing orders in a document to the Justice Committee (Inquiry linked in my reply above) and point out that parking firm bulk litigators are unreasonably/ negligently splitting PCNs across two equally meritless claims which is doubling court time.

Or do it for them?

This case is a GREAT example for the Committee.

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

Well done!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

@patient_dream can you help and encourage this OP to send pics of both claim forms and both hearing orders in a document to the Justice Committee (Inquiry linked in my reply above) and point out that parking firm bulk litigators are unreasonably/ negligently splitting PCNs across two equally meritless claims which is doubling court time.

Or do it for them?

This case is a GREAT example for the Committee.

Yes, after next friday's dopple ganger

zeljko

Hi,

I am looking forward my 2nd hearing this Friday.
Could I get advise if I can send this to court before my hearing

Dear Sirs

 

Claim No:  XXXXXXXXX

Parties: Britannia Parking Group Limited t/a Britannia Parking - v - XXXXXXXXXX

Hearing Date: 01/12/2023 at 11:00

I refer to the above matter.

I attach the judgment that defendant will be seeking to rely upon at the forthcoming hearing.

A copy of the same has also been served on the Claimant and the Claimant is copied into this email.

Kind Regards,

Attachment: 

Dear Sir or Madam

Claim Number: XXXXXX

County Court: Reading

The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim.

A recent persuasive judgment Claim number: XXXXXX, Britannia Parking Group Limited t/a Britannia Parking - v - XXXXX XXXXXX at the County Court Reading 24th November 2023.

The Claimant has issued a further claim, number XXXXXX, against the Defendant with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action and on 24th of Nov claim has been dismissed by Judge.

The Defendant has requested that the Claimant combine these cases (as per Civil Procedure Rules) in writing on two occasions but has received no affirmative response. The issuing of two separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.  

The claimant refuses to join both cases together saying there were two different cars.

The claimant knows that I am the registered keeper of both cars and these two claims have identical circumstances.

Yours sincerely,

follow judgment :

patient_dream

The Judge  concentrated on the signage and dismissed the claim on the basis that the signs were inadequate

For the next case on friday 1/12, it is identical with the exception that it was a different vehicle but the same keeper
BWLegal refused to join the cases together

So, everything is the same as the last case
*Inadequate signage
*Britannia entity problem
*Signage instructed the VRN to be entered in the pub. This was lockdown and the pub was closed
*Usual BWL add-ons not reflected on signs

Castle

The Judgment dated 24th November 2023 stated that the Defendant wasn't in attendance!