2 x CCJ's that i was not aware about

nopcns

Is it not also worth highlighting to the court in para 76 that not only are they two PoC almost identical but that the Claimants solicitor has mendaciously tried to claim interest at 10.25% instead of 8% in one of them, which is, in itself, unreasonable behaviour.

Coupon-mad

nopcns said:

Is it not also worth highlighting to the court in para 76 that not only are they two PoC almost identical but that the Claimants solicitor has mendaciously tried to claim interest at 10.25% instead of 8% in one of them, which is, in itself, unreasonable behaviour.

Oh wow, yes, he has that as well!  

IN ONE OF THE POC.  Not the other.

This case has all the aspects you'd want to damn Gladstones.

Totally unreasonable course of litigation conduct = the Defendant must succeed in getting all their costs awarded, including for travel to and attendance at the application hearing.

The claims should ALSO be struck out for failing to strictly adhere to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

The OP could finally add to ONE of the WS; only the one relating to the POC trying to get 10.25% interest:

This claim should also be struck out for failing to strictly adhere to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984, in that Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs (including this one) there is clearly an abuse by parking claimants who were said by the CJC to be the main perpetrators. The added fake (unincurred and disproportionate) £70 'damages/fee' and inflated interest both appear to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged PCN.  I hope the court formally warns or sanctions Gladstones as the court sees fit.  I see this as 'vexatious litigation' and there has been a totally unreasonable course of litigation conduct from start to finish.  I contend that I must succeed in getting all my costs awarded, including the court fees (£550 for two applications) and for travel to and attendance at the application hearing(s).

Coupon-mad

Also, why is one PCN £100 and one is £90?  They can't both be right if they rely upon the same signs... within days of each event.

Unless they are about two locations?  The POC will say.  But you thought these were both about your old residence?

You need to add that observation (in bold above)  to your WS too, when you talk about the Chan case. Point out the £90 / £100 discrepancy between the two POC and say this is something of a farce, bearing all the hallmarks of incompetence at best, and vexatious litigation at worst.  The sign on site cannot have created a contract for £100 on one day and yet £90 just days later). Given the Overriding Objective, there is no point in the courts even asking Gladstones/the Claimant to explain.  They deserve sanctions for this course of conduct and have clearly abused the court process in several ways.

Zbubuman

Thank you all. I will make the changes. Scan everything and send off tomorrow.

I have to admit I was feeling pretty down due to this. But now I feel great. 

Will let you know what the courts say about the fees tomorrow.

P.S cant wait for Gladstones standard defense of "The Defendant is relying on an internet defense, this is not fair and he shouldn't be allowed to do so"

Coupon-mad

If you don't get these set aside AND all your costs AND the claims dismissed, I will eat my hat.

But if the (expired/unserved) claims are not dismissed, I'd be tempted to do a counterclaim if you are put to the trouble of defending.

1505grandad

A heads-up  (if only for consistency)  -  "I believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly....."

No middle "e" in Judgment -  you have both spellings several times (Google CCJ)

Zbubuman

1505grandad said:

A heads-up  (if only for consistency)  -  "I believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly....."

No middle "e" in Judgment -  you have both spellings several times (Google CCJ)

Thanks - Will do the good old CTRL-F tomorrow and make sure it's all nice a tidy before i send. Also Learning about Gladstones reputation. I wouldn't it put it past them for them to come up with a silly argument " ohh he spelled Judgment wrong, so you should not event listen to his case"

Zbubuman

All done @Coupon-mad removed all the unnecessary lines 13, 14 & 21 and changed  3 & 7. 

Under Henderson V Henderson amended as follows: 

34. The Claimant has issued two claims with identical Particulars with the exception of the Parking Charge issue date which are merely days apart.

XXXXX - Issue Date 28/09/2019

XXXXX - Issue Date 09/10/2019

And put this under CEL v Chan

80. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment and dozens of similar decisions both at hearings and at allocation stage (SEE EXHIBIT XX- - Chan and other Judgments) the Court should strike out the two claims, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

81. This claim should also be struck out for failing to strictly adhere to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984, in that Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs (including this one) there is clearly an abuse by parking claimants who were said by the CJC to be the main perpetrators. The added fake (unincurred and disproportionate) £70 'damages/fee' and inflated interest both appear to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged PCN.  I hope the court formally warns or sanctions Gladstones as the court sees fit.  I see this as 'vexatious litigation' and there has been a totally unreasonable course of litigation conduct from start to finish.  I contend that I must succeed in getting all my costs awarded, including the court fees (£550 for two applications) and for travel to and attendance at the application hearing(s).

82. I would also like to point out to the court why is one PCN £100 and one is £90? They can't both be right if they rely upon the same signs... within days of each event.   (Forum only - Maybe it was cheeky Friday and there was 10% discount on all PCN's that day, or I got a loyalty discount as a frequent customer!)

83. The sign on site cannot have created a contract for £100 on one day and yet £90 just days later. Considering that the claimant is relying on a breach of the terms of the contract as the crux of their claim; this is something of a farce, bearing all the hallmarks of incompetence at best, and vexatious litigation at worst. Given the Overriding Objective, there is no point in the courts to waste even more time by asking Gladstones/the Claimant to explain.  They deserve sanctions for this course of conduct and have clearly abused the court process in several ways.

Question? with regards to travel costs & attendance fee. should i wait for allocation of court and hearing date first or send a schedule of costs with the application ? Also not sure about this, but on the set aside fees I will be paying by CC, can i add 8% simple interest ? 

KeithP

Leave out paragraph 82 altogether. This is not the place to ask questions - rhetorical or otherwise.

Zbubuman

KeithP said:

Leave out paragraph 82 altogether. This is not the place to ask questions - rhetorical or otherwise.

Would like to leave something in there to introduce para 83. how about :

82. The Terms of parking on the Stipulated Signage (the Contract) contradict themselves between the two claims with one showing a PCN of £100, and the other £90.