Permit at work VCS DCB Legal court claim

ChirpyChicken

Well done you, yes a lot are not like traditional court rooms at all. glad its sorted for you

Coupon-mad

Kitkat8 said:

I just got back! Struck out due to Henderson V Henderson not being addressed in claimants WS and if incorrect was dismissed due to the tax disc holder falling being 'out of my control'. It was not a purposeful breach of contract and so the judge was actually very kind.

The lawyer was also extremely kind and said to us before hand that he didn't know why we were all there because it was clear I had a permit.

He got told off by the judge a few times. Judge has asked lawyer to feed back to Claimant to discontinue 2nd claim as abuse of process to the court.

Costs awarded.

It really is worth it all! The judge was very kind. It was a meeting room rather than a court room with a table and chairs with me and the claimants lawyer. The judge was behind a small desk with mikes.

It was similar set up to a panel meeting or an interview?

So don't be scared! I promise it's all worth it!


EDIT:
...reminder of the Henderson v Henderson argument:
-----------------

9. Further, the Defendant also takes the point that this claim is a near-duplicate of an earlier claim. The doctrine of cause of action estoppel applies. This second claim should be struck out by the court's own volition, using its case management powers.

10. Being legally represented, the Claimant knows, or should know, that by detaching or allowing to remain detached, elements of alleged debts and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.  

11. This Claimant has issued two claims relating to parking charges for same carpark and parking incidents within one month.
Claim number L8KF5F52 - relates to PCN issued on 19th December 2023.
Claim number L8KF8N27 - relates to a PCN issued on the 22nd December 2023, relying on the same facts.

12. In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”

13. In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:
(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

Glad to see that this (and the small matter of the car having a permit, which they knew early on) worked and so...

ANOTHER TWO BITE THE DUST!

Were these both DCB Legal Claims, out of interest? Seems they are instructed not to discontinue VCS claims and to go to hearings.

By the way, show us the NoD for the second claim when it arrives, please,  so we can count it in Umkomaas' thread.

If they don't discontinue, you will have to push them and remind them you'll go for costs again.

Anyway - well done! Costs too!

Kitkat8

They are both DCB Legal claims yes. I actually felt a bit sorry for their legal representative. He got torn to shreds by the judge and it seemed he had only been called this morning to represent the claimant! And then ofc he was like 'This is so stupid' basically 😅🤣

But yes I will keep you all updated! Thankyou so so much everyone for all your help! It's been such a long road but so worth it!!

ChirpyChicken

Yes they often only get instruction the day before 

Kitkat8

Had my 2nd one today. Judge was a stickler. Honestly have no idea how the solicitor got away with it. He barely said anything. None of them had read my witness statement despite me sending it. Then judge said no to henderson vs henderson and that signage was clear and sufficient so three that atgument out aswell. Solicitor jeot asking for more and more money. So now I have to pay £215.18 to them. Fuming.

kryten3000

Judge lottery strikes again, but an appeal might be worth trying on the basis of the previous win.  

LoneStarState

Kitkat8 said:

Had my 2nd one today. Judge was a stickler. Honestly have no idea how the solicitor got away with it. He barely said anything. None of them had read my witness statement despite me sending it. Then judge said no to henderson vs henderson and that signage was clear and sufficient so three that atgument out aswell. Solicitor jeot asking for more and more money. So now I have to pay £215.18 to them. Fuming.

Did the previous judgment from the court in your first case include mention of discontinuing the second claim?  As mentioned prior, appeal seems worth it in this instance, maybe via Contestor Legal.

Kitkat8

It didn't mention about the 2nd claim unfortunately just the first was struck out due to Henderson vs Henderson 

Kitkat8

The worst part of all of this is that the judge told me to ask the solicitor where to send the money once we left the court room. When I asked him he told me he had no idea and to email DCB to find out...
So I have 15 days now to give the money over to an unknown source for an unknown amount otherwise IM THE ONE who gets the CCJ how is that fair?! 

Coupon-mad

Kitkat8 said:

The worst part of all of this is that the judge told me to ask the solicitor where to send the money once we left the court room. When I asked him he told me he had no idea and to email DCB to find out...
So I have 15 days now to give the money over to an unknown source for an unknown amount otherwise IM THE ONE who gets the CCJ how is that fair?! 

Pay on DCB Legal's portal IMMEDIATELY.