6 PCN's and a historic CCJ

63realfan

Le_Kirk said:

63realfan said:

Courts have hardly “acted both reasonably & proportionately to date”!!!

Claimant has acted ................. not courts!

 That's what I meant..last message, wrong choice of words. Out of anger

Coupon-mad

Would it be two separate LBC's though? I know that there is two separate claims but would they have sent two letters? They don't mention this. I'll double check the evidence of the trace. It doesn't make sense. 

Yes. It would have had to be two separate LBCs as they had split the case into two files.  There would have been two sets of every letter because there was no due diligence to consolidate the two claims into one.

Splitting a claim into two is an abuse in itself which has doubled the burden on the court service and doubled the fee costs for the Defendant to reverse the injustice. Henderson v Henderson is the authority (cause of action estoppel = a Claimant can't have two bites at the same cherry, they must bring their entire case the first time). 

I suspect @Castle is right and that August letter (most likely just ONE of the two sent) got returned 'not known at this address' which caused them to do a sudden soft trace.  It's the only explanation!

But they aren't telling the court that ... hmmm.  The silence on the reason for the timing of that trace is deafening! 'Not known at this address' is reason to believe the address is not good for service.

And they won't want the Judge picking up on that...

Did you do a quick SAR to the solicitors yet?

If not, yes head it up 'SAR' & the data subject's name and car VRM and both claim numbers, and ask for ALL returned letters/envelopes that bounced back.  The one from the resident that led to the soft trace in Sept and the one from the CCBC that returned the Claim form. Act as if he knows that both these letters were returned and spell it out that these two returned letters/envelopes addressed to him are what he requires.

To raise at the hearing:

- even though there were two claims the Claimants have only mentioned sending one LBC - for only one of the case files - to the traced address (they say) on 7th Sept.  Not two. What they don't say is speaking volumes because the suspiciously odd (very fast) timing of the purported 'soft trace' can only mean that the August letter for that batch of PCNs was returned from the wrong address marked 'gone away' or 'not at this address/return to sender'. Almost certainly, because we know the later court claim was and there is no other explanation for the timing of that soft trace. Clearly the resident living there since 2022 helpfully returns letters and doesn't just ignore them;

- if the Claimant had bothered to consolidate the cases and cross-reference the new address found in the soft trace, there would either have been two LBCs or (better practice, save for the ludicrously disproportionate fee add-ons) one single amalgamated LBC, demanding over £1500;

- clearly they didn't bother, and the claim without the 7th Sept new LBC carried on with no soft trace check of the address, and the claim went to that old address.  Because they had two files and didn't bother to check before litigation that there were no other PCNs to bring forward in that same cause of action.

- the claim with the soft trace also unjustifiably 'reverted' to the known old address which is not just sharp practice - a breach of the CPRs - and improper, but clearly vexatious and a (negligent or deliberate) abuse, if they knew - as seems almost certain - that the August letter had bounced back in the post;

- the Defendant's position is that the Cs knew the address was old and not good for service; there was more than one 'reason to believe' that a court claim sent there would NOT be served properly because the Defendant had moved. Which they knew.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Get your friend to email a SAR to the CCBC asking for an urgent copy of any letter sent by the CCBC to Gladstones telling them that the claim form(s) for either or both of claim number xxxxxxxx and/or xxxxxxxx were returned as undelivered, 'gone away' or similar.  Plus images of the envelopes and contents, if either claim form was returned from OLD ADDRESS.  Or an immediate reply confirming 'no such data is held' if it is the case that the claim(s) were not returned from that address.

And get him to send a SAR to Gladstones for the same as the above - if such a letter or email from the CCBC exists about unserved claim(s) - and a copy of the supposed soft trace that they say was returned in 2022 

As above but also asking Gladstones for the bounced letter from August that caused them to do a soft trace plus their Case History notes:

- showing exactly why they did that sudden 'soft trace' just days after posting a letter to the old address, and

- showing what they did when they got the letter from the CCBC telling them that one/both claims had been returned 'not at this address;

- all of the 'case history' dates and actions held about him/his case on their 'case management system' for both claims (personal data of employees can be redacted and any notes of actual legal advice to their client can be redacted).

63realfan

And they won't want the Judge picking up on that... -=MWHAHAHA. Excellent theory. Exciting isn't it! So you do actually believe they sent a letter to his old address but the fact it's could of returned back shows that they know the address is not good for service. Do you actually think that they wrote to his new address though after doing the soft trace? If they did actually send the 7th September letter, won't to court believe that the D ignored it or will the judge believe no LBC was actually sent out? Interesting theory about the two LBC's having to be sent out.


To raise at the hearing:

- even though there were two claims the Claimants have only mentioned sending one LBC - for only one of the case files - to the traced address (they say) on 7th Sept.  Not two. What they don't say is speaking volumes because the suspiciously odd (very fast) timing of the purported 'soft trace' can only mean that the August letter for that batch of PCNs was returned from the wrong address marked 'gone away' or 'not at this address/return to sender'. Almost certainly, because we know the later court claim was and there is no other explanation for the timing of that soft trace. Clearly the resident living there since 2022 helpfully returns letters and doesn't just ignore them;

- if the Claimant had bothered to consolidate the cases and cross-reference the new address found in the soft trace, there would either have been two LBCs or (better practice, save for the ludicrously disproportionate fee add-ons) one single amalgamated LBC, demanding over £1500;

- clearly they didn't bother, and the claim without the 7th Sept new LBC carried on with no soft trace check of the address, and the claim went to that old address.  Because they had two files and didn't bother to check before litigation that there were no other PCNs to bring forward in that same cause of action.

- the claim with the soft trace also unjustifiably 'reverted' to the known old address which is not just sharp practice - a breach of the CPRs - and improper, but clearly vexatious and a (negligent or deliberate) abuse, if they knew - as seems almost certain - that the August letter had bounced back in the post;

- the Defendant's position is that the Cs knew the address was old and not good for service; there was more than one 'reason to believe' that a court claim sent there would NOT be served properly because the Defendant had moved. Which they knew. - Should he form this as a WS?

So essentially we're trying to catch them out to see if any LBC were actually sent at all? I've wrote up 2 separate emails for him to send tonight ready for both of them tomorrow. 

I also wanted to ask, is there anyway I can sit in and support him in his court day. Despite trying to explain the full situation to him, he is still struggling fully to understand and doesn't read the situation like I do. Because of his slight language barrier, is there a way I can almost sit with and help relay the facts to court?

Thank you ever so much for your help as always

Coupon-mad

Yes send that SAR.

No not another WS as that'll annoy the Judge.  These are crib sheet notes for the hearing.

Yes, you should be able to present his case, as long as he is there too. No prior permission needed.

Up to the Judge if they allow you to speak as his 'Lay Representative', or just assist him silently by pointing & whispering (a 'McKenzie Friend and not half as good).  As it's to hear an application regarding a claim that was never allocated to a track, I suppose it's possible a Judge might try to refuse but did you say English isn't the D's first language?

You could say you are lay repping and translating "to assist him and the court" and show a printed copy of the Lay Reps (Rights of Audience) Order.  I always take one with me when lay repping.

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

Yes send that SAR.

No not another WS as that'll annoy the Judge.  These are crib sheet notes for the hearing.

Yes, you should be able to present his case, as long as he is there too. No prior permission needed.

Up to the Judge if they allow you to speak as his 'Lay Representative', or just assist him silently by pointing & whispering (a 'McKenzie Friend and not half as good).  As it's to hear an application regarding a claim that was never allocated to a track, I suppose it's possible a Judge might try to refuse but did you say English isn't the D's first language?

You could say you are lay repping and translating "to assist him and the court" and show a printed copy of the Lay Reps (Rights of Audience) Order.  I always take one with me when lay repping.

Legend, I'll update you with what comes back from CCBC and Gladstone's. 

Yeah I thought it was as a Lay representative. Do you literally just turn up on the day, no prior informing at all or anything? Sounds too easy! He does speak English but it isn't his first language. He can speak English well, he's just not as good with all the different abbreviations and what I'm speaking to him about. He knows the basic but I've done all of his paperwork etc.

I'll see what happens on the day however I said i'd sit down with him day before and go through everything thoroughly. I did also note that C and Solicitor aren't attending which will ease off pressure on him on the day. 

God I'd love to have you in my corner  

Update soon!

Coupon-mad

Do you literally just turn up on the day, no prior informing at all or anything?

Yep. With a copy of the law that says he can! 

Sometimes I've been told by the Usher when signing in for the hearing: "I'll tell the Judge you are the McKenzie Friend" and I've then brandished the Lay Reps Order and said "Errm, no, please show this to the Judge. I am the Lay Representative & the Defendant is here too, so I have Rights of Audience to speak".

One Judge - phone hearing - grumbled, then when I spoke she changed and realised I knew what I was talking about.

At my very first hearing - 'in person' at Worthing about 5 years ago - the Claimant parking firm's hired legal rep (a twelve year old girl, I thought...) scowled at me and objected to the Judge that she 'wasn't told about this woman and she's not a solicitor!"

The lovely lady Judge said "well she doesn't need to be a solicitor to be a Lay Representative; I'm happy with Mrs R's rights of audience and she didn't need to tell the Claimant first.  I'm telling you now!"

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

Do you literally just turn up on the day, no prior informing at all or anything?

Yep. With a copy of the law that says he can! 

Sometimes I've been told by the Usher when signing in for the hearing: "I'll tell the Judge you are the McKenzie Friend" and I've then brandished the Lay Reps Order and said "Errm, no, please show this to the Judge. I am the Lay Representative & the Defendant is here too, so I have Rights of Audience to speak".

One Judge - phone hearing - grumbled, then when I spoke she changed and realised I knew what I was talking about.

At my very first hearing - 'in person' at Worthing about 5 years ago - the Claimant parking firm's hired legal rep (a twelve year old girl, I thought...) scowled at me and objected to the Judge that she 'wasn't told about this woman and she's not a solicitor!"

The lovely lady Judge said "well she doesn't need to be a solicitor to be a Lay Representative; I'm happy with Mrs R's rights of audience and she didn't need to tell the Claimant first.  I'm telling you now!"

Awesome that. Love it. Noted!! How much to go represent my friend?! Worthing isn't too far from us, surely gotta be close!! Love it, would be interesting to see someone as knowledgeable as yourself ruin their solicitors. The solicitor I had spoke for about 2 minutes, barely said anything. I then spoke for about 15 minutes and Solicitor started writing then just gave up I think and decided not to reply to what I said and almost agreed if anything. 

Good stuff. What would I do without you

Coupon-mad

Ah - I'm not lay repping any more. I don't love it or need stress in my life (I'm retired and enjoying my freedom) and I think Judges prefer to hear from the Defendant.  Last one I did was a year ago.  Never lost any!

I prefer the 'war' (big changes) rather than individual face to face battles now.  I feel that it's more important that I stay engaged in the Government Steering Group shaping the new incoming Code of Practice that should improve things for everyone.

Like all the regulars on this board, I am also keen to help people help themselves to win their cases here.  With our help you can do this, honestly.

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

Ah - I'm not lay repping any more. I don't love it or need stress in my life (I'm retired and enjoying my freedom) and I think Judges prefer to hear from the Defendant.  Last one I did was a year ago.  Never lost any!

I prefer the 'war' (big changes) rather than individual face to face battles now.  I feel that it's more important that I stay engaged in the Government Steering Group shaping the new incoming Code of Practice that should improve things for everyone.

Like all the regulars on this board, I am also keen to help people help themselves to win their cases here.  With our help you can do this, honestly.

Fair enough. Did wonder how you have so much time to help people. What you do is honestly amazing and inspires me for sure to check regularly to help others here and learn more about it to also assist you and others on the board where I can. I'd love to see big changes happen to what is clearly a broken system. Did you ever get the same judge at a case you helped with?

Another Q - do I need to prep a defence for what the solicitor said about the original 4 PCN's and how we plan to defend these if the 2x CCJ gets put aside? I remember after receiving the solicitors WS for mine that we drafted a defence which the judge saw and suggested we go down small claims track. Obviously DCBL pulled out like you said, just had the thought considering there's a wealth of information that Gladstones have put about the 4 original PCN's and how D will have little to no chance defending them.