HELP PLEASE! Residential defence witness statement against PCN claims brought by DCB Legal

Waldo03

Earlier this week the claimant's legal representative emailed to me their client's supplementary witness statement on the day when as per the court orders they were supposed to pay the trial fee. In the supplementary WS, the claimant basically attempted to reply to my WS.

In my WS, I argued on the grounds of cause of action estoppel, primacy of contract, lack of ADR opportunity, claimant disclosed only 1 PCN on my DSAR while suing me for 10 PCNs in under 2 claims, insufficient signage, claimant's lack of authority to issue penalties, extortionate add-ons, and DLUHC's observations about rogue private parking companies which led to then introduction of Private Parking Code of Practice 2022.

In the supplementary WS, the claimant took refuge under the excuse of "genuine administrative error" on their failure to provide all the data on my file and then went on to say the defendant could have sought the information from their (claimant's) legal representative as by then he had been served with the claim. I actually had informed the legal representative that I had submitted DSAR to their client.

To the lack of ADR opportunity, the claimant says their legal representative had issued pre action protocol for debt claims but the defendant did not engage with it. My case is that I only got to know about the PCNs when I received particulars of claim from the court and the information released by the claimant to my DSAR sufficiently supports my assertion.

On duplicate facts and cause of action estoppel, the claimant says they had not yet instructed their legal representatives in the second claim until 1 month after this Claim had already been issued. As such, this resulted in two separate Claims being issued. Since the second claim is a separate matter, they do not intend to comment on that any further.

The PCNs mentioned is the claim 1 were allegedly issued in April 2022 and the PCNs given on the claim 2 were allegedly issued in June 2022 while the claim 1 was issued in November 2022, 5 months after the dates of PCNs given on the claim 2. This is interesting and seems the claimant is deliberately misleading the court on the issue of duplicate facts.

The claimant also responded to my points on Private Parking Code of Practice 2022 saying it has been withdrawn as of June 2022 and that it does not apply retrospectively. On the lack of evidence to prove their contract with the landlord to issue penalties especially to the residents, they say the defendant is a 3rd party to the agreement and privity of contract applies. By the way, the company that the claimant claimed have authorised them to manage car park does not exist in the Companies House register and it is not either of the 3 housing associations that own properties in the estate where I live and park my vehicle.

To my argument about insufficient signage and convoluted terms and conditions, they say If the defendant did not understand the Terms on the signs, they should have exited the land and found alternative parking. I mean I am a resident and my lease does not stop me from parking my vehicle in the car park in question.

Both the witness statements are from two different persons, the first one was by an employee of the claimant and the second is from a director of the claimant PPC. I don not know if this is of any significance but I thought to share this aspect with all you good people.

Should I also submit a supplementary WS? If yes, then when and what should I include in it? My hearing is on 29th of August.

Any news on DLUHC's impact report?

YankeeBrit

What's the bet that the intellectually malnourished DCB Legal will discontinue before the hearing? According to your defence and WS and your rebuttal above to their SWS, they are in for a spanking if this ever gets before a judge.

I'm not sure what others will advise but I believe that SWS ping pong is frowned upon by some judges, although you are within your rights to issue your own SWS. You can, of course, argue all the valid points you've made above, should this actually proceed to an actual hearing.

The DLUHC draft IA has been released and you can see and partake in the associated call for evidence here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence

Did you ever make a complaint about the PPC to the ICO?

Coupon-mad

On duplicate facts and cause of action estoppel, the claimant says they had not yet instructed their legal representatives in the second claim until 1 month after this Claim had already been issued. As such, this resulted in two separate Claims being issued. Since the second claim is a separate matter, they do not intend to comment on that any further.

Haha! That's basically admitting maladministration and that the second claim is estopped!

Don't do another WS.

Judges hate email tennis.  Bring everything up at the hearing(s).  Do you have a single hearing for both claims?

Waldo03

YankeeBrit said:

Did you ever make a complaint about the PPC to the ICO?

I did not

Waldo03

Coupon-mad said:

Haha! That's basically admitting maladministration and that the second claim is estopped!

Don't do another WS.

Judges hate email tennis.  Bring everything up at the hearing(s).  Do you have a single hearing for both claims?

Hearing date for the second claim has not been fixed yet, though in DQs and then in my WS I have requested for a same day hearing. In fact, the CCBC has not yet allocated the case to my local county court.

Dear CM, thanks for your continuous support. I have just sent you a message, please see and respond. I will be grateful.

Coupon-mad

I replied.

Maybe use your email to ask the Judge to consolidate both hearings into one 2 hour remote hearing.

You can say you are alerting the court that  "one hour isn't enough" as there are two claims that should be heard as one, or the second one needs striking out under 'cause of action estoppel' to save valuable court time.

You will not be filing an application because that cost is disproportionate, but you trust the Judge dealing with the second claim xxxxxx will pick up on the fact that it would meet the Overriding Objective to consolidate the two claims and vacate the first hearing, or review both in boxwork and strike the second one out, using the Court's own case management powers.

Head the email up with BOTH CLAIM NOs.

Waldo03

CCBC has yesterday transferred the second claim to the same county court where the first case has been listed for hearing. Now is the right time to request the court to hear both the cases at once 😁

Coupon-mad

Waldo03 said:

CCBC has yesterday transferred the second claim to the same county court where the first case has been listed for hearing. Now is the right time to request the court to hear both the cases at once 😁

Hmmm make sure that's not your first thing you ask for, as per my reply above, there is a better suggestion.

Consolidation is only a fall-back.

Waldo03

Sure, I will request the court to strike out the second claim under 'cause of action estoppel' or alternatively consolidate the two cases. I have said the same in my witness statement.

By the way, in the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) for the first claim, the court has already said "[Hearing] should take no longer than 2 hours". It doesn't say one hour.

Coupon-mad

OK so you could say you are not sure that 2 hours will be enough to consider two claims (leave it up to the court) or just not use that point