CourtServe and Claim Form evidence of the parking firm claim tsunami

Coupon-mad

Courtserve shows daily lists of the cases that the Judge will have the next day.

Can anyone please help me build this discussion as a 'thread of evidence' showing various county court listings this week (or after the New Year when courts re-open) please?

Redact surnames & claim number ends.

Like this, here's a typical day at Brighton County Court taken from CourtServe one day in the Summer:

Anyone can register (free) and log into CourtServe and put in a Court name; it shows you the listings for the next day:
https://www.courtserve.net/courtlists/current/county/indexv2county.php

Thanks. Any poster can do this and this thread could be ongoing into 2024.

Needed for yet more Government submissions, so they definitely realise what's going on & have real evidence.

EDIT
I've decided to add redacted claim form evidence taken from threads here too.  Shows that these boilerplate 'parking' particulars of claim don't even state what the allegation is, in most cases.

Some don't add up. All are inflated by the abusive debt recovery 'fee' that in fact brings bulk litigators to the trough.  It is that fee that causes the claim tsunami.

Below evidence includes:

Multi-ticket cases without even bothering to list the PCNs or dates...

A claim alleging that a contract was formed in a Scottish car park and that the "keeper is liable" (under an Act that doesn't apply). DCB Legal have even ploughed on after picked up on that by a Judge...

Statute barred penalties morphing into small claims under contract...

Castle

I see that the last hearing listed on the CourtServe list is, "v Fabricate", seems very appropriate

Umkomaas

Castle said:

I see that the last hearing listed on the CourtServe list is, "v Fabricate", seems very appropriate

You couldn't make it up ....!

1505grandad

Wonder how this went?

Whatever2023

The MoJ would have already advised the Gov on this, and easily resolved by having all parking cases determined on the papers; there’s very little to add in person.

Coupon-mad

Some parking claim evidence:

DCB Legal pleaded parking cases:

1.  Typical parking claim from 2018 below.
- maximises 8% interest profit; filed just before it would have been statute-barred
- no breach specified
- no basis of claim specified, just scattergun "D is liable as the driver or keeper" (if the POFA Sch4 wasn't complied with, keeper liability doesn't pass)
- 8% backdated interest on the whole £160
- interest calculated on the whole £170 from 'the date hereof' (unspecified) despite BPA Code of Practice clause 24.4 making it impossible that £170 was due that early:

2. Claiming in 2023 for 2017 PCNs just before the 6 years is up.

No breach details.
Defendant "liable as keeper or driver"but MET didn't issue POFA NTKs in 2017.
Massive 8% interest on the whole sum:

3.  E&W MoneyClaim, wrongly alleging that the registered keeper is liable for a parking event in Scotland:


This has (of course) got the nod straight through the CNBC sausage machine, and wasted the time of a Judge in Nottingham, whose order has questioned the jurisdiction.  

DCB Legal actually replied, misleading the court that the PoFA 2012 (a law that doesn't apply in Scotland) is the basis of liability.  All court paper images here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80513091/#Comment_80513091

BW Legal pleaded claims:

- no breach specified
- no basis of claim (keeper? driver?)
- no location given
- doubled the rip-off £70 'DRA fee'
- no dates specified: 'our client issued 2 PCNs at some point between two dates in an unknown car park for reasons unknown'...

Another one. No location, no breach.
Even worse as it is claiming £300 for 3 PCNs (plus £180 extortionate 'DRA fees') but only gives two dates:

Coupon-mad

CST Law pleaded parking cases:
Aka Debt Recovery Plus with legal hats on

1.  One PCN date is given, but:

- no breach(es) specified,
- no vehicle specified (multiple?!)
- 8% backdated interest on the whole £170
- interest prematurely calculated on the whole £170 from 4 weeks after PCN date despite BPA Code of Practice clause 24.4 making it impossible that £170 was due that early
- one PCN can't exceed £100 yet claim is for £340 (that would be two PCNs and two so-called 'collection charges' which the DLUHC described as 'extorting money from motorists'):

2. Claim below. alleges (wrongly) above the statement of truth, that an owner/hirer is liable at Stansted Airport, where in fact the POFA 2012 (Schedule 4, the only possible right to 'keeper/hirer liability') can never apply.

NB: this isn't pleaded under byelaws as a penalty either.  'Owner' cannot be liable.
Outwith Schedule 4 POFA (or byelaws) there's is NO lawful way to pursue an 'owner or hirer' yet they've pleaded it:

3. More generic POC, claim almost £2000 but:
How many PCNs? No idea.
What terms were breached? Who cares.  

Only two dates. Defendant has to guess.
Breakdown of heads of cost, mysterious 'collection charges' specified?  Nope:

Coupon-mad

Gladstones pleaded parking claims (many times this year) added 10.25% interest despite the capped maximum being 8% -

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/work-out-interest#:~:text=If%20you're%20owed%20money,0.08%20(which%20is%208%25).

This solicitor has a history of conflict of interests with the IPC Trade Body):
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/all-change-at-gladstones-and-ipc.html?m=1

- no breach nor car park terms specified

- 10.25% (are they making it up as they go along?!) interest on the whole £155

Nice work letting all these through with what looks like an improperly enhanced interest rate, CNBC.

And here's a typical set of duplicated claims that should have been ONE claim but does anyone at the CNBC spot this? No:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6497195/help-needed-regarding-claim-forms-n1sdt-from-ukcpm-gladstone-solicitors

Claim 1 issue date: 15/December/2023

Claim 2 issue date: 19/December/2023

Claimant: UKCPM. Solicitors: Gladstones

Claims not served until 30th December:

Coupon-mad

UKPC in-house
They only started in-house litigation (October 2023) and look to be copying DCBLegal's style of poorly pleaded cases with no breach or terms specified.

Worse: trying to backdate 8% interest on the whole £170, calculated from the day BEFORE the parking event!  
1.

2. More of the same:

3. Again:

4. And again:

5. And again:

Coupon-mad

Civil Enforcement Ltd
in-house
Two typical single PCN cases:
- no explanation as to why it's £170 (damages? contract? fake DRA 'fees'?... even though DRAs act as no-win-no-fee and failed, given that this is done in-house)
- No breach specified
- no contractual term/rationale specified
- 8% backdated interest on the whole £170
- interest prematurely calculated on the whole £170 from 4 weeks after PCN date despite BPA Code of Practice clause 24.4 making it impossible that £170 was due that early:

Coupon-mad

Askews (new solicitor for parking cases)

Astonishingly (allegedly, based on two cases seen in November) the Claimant is seen trying to pursue a statute-barred Penalty Notice, or maybe five.  The POC says both and the claim is 4 figures.

- amount isn't a multiple of 5, so how can this be for 5 Penalties?
- no dates specified
- no car park location
- no vehicle specified
- no contractual term/rationale specified
- no Penalty refs or any details at all
- 8% backdated interest on the whole £898 quantum but no heads of cost breakdown
- interest calculated on the whole £sum 'from the relevant due date' (when's that, then?)
- basis of claim unexplained, it's out of time for penalties and arguably wrong Claimant and wrong jurisdiction. Penalties aren't issued under contract law and must be brought by the Train Operating Company before Magistrates' Court within 6 months:

...yet this case relates to 2021 PENALTIES issued under byelaws, not contract law.
Here's one of the Penalty Notice NTOs:

2. Different case, same huge issues:

Given that MoJ Court Statistics tell us that 90% of claims go straight to Default CCJs due to the Claimant-favouring auto-CCJ system with (the CNBC admits) 'zero human checks', discussed here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6493438/civil-national-business-centre-cnbc-performance-statistics#latest

...it makes you wonder how many of these will blithely wreck people's credit ratings in 2024, despite the fact that these Penalties are over 2 years old, timed out after 6 months, CAN'T be claimed in the County court and CAN'T be pleaded in contract...

Nice work letting these through, CNBC.