2 x CCJ's that i was not aware about

nopcns

Coupon-mad said:

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).

What about this important piece of damning evidence? Have you put that in?

KeithP

Zbubuman said:

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.

But you already have that in para 83.

Coupon-mad

@nopcns - Yes that is there now.  But it only applies to one of the claims so it will only be in one of the 2 witness statements.

Zbubuman said:

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.

No, the signs don't contradict themselves, the POC do.  I agree with you that you do need a paragraph 82 to explain where you are getting the £100 /£90 discrepancy from. 

So maybe:

82.  The POC also contradict each other. The two claims relate to the same location and same facts PCNs issued days apart, yet one POC says the parking charge is £100 and the other states that the parking charge (less then two weeks later) was £90.  The signs would not have changed and the parking charge for the site would definitely not have decreased because that's not what this rogue industry do.  Therefore, one of the claims is fundamentally wrong on the basics: the Claimant does not even know the level of its own parking charge at that location.

---------

Re the costs, you can send a signed & dated costs assessment too.  A day off work and estimated travel costs plus £550 application fees (no you can't add interest to court fees, and nor can they). Or (better) send it separately to the local court, once you have a hearing date because then you'll know if it's one hearing, and you will be able to attach the CNBC receipt to prove you paid £550 in fees.

Which is your local court? Did you tell us?

Zbubuman

Coupon-mad said:

@nopcns - Yes that is there now.  But it only applies to one of the claims so it will only be in one of the 2 witness statements.

Zbubuman said:

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.

No, the signs don't contradict themselves, the POC do.  I agree with you that you do need a paragraph 82 to explain where you are getting the £100 /£90 discrepancy from. 

So maybe:

82.  The POC also contradict each other. The two claims relate to the same location and same facts PCNs issued days apart, yet one POC says the parking charge is £100 and the other states that the parking charge (less then two weeks later) was £90.  The signs would not have changed and the parking charge for the site would definitely not have decreased because that's not what this rogue industry do.  Therefore, one of the claims is fundamentally wrong on the basics: the Claimant does not even know the level of its own parking charge at that location.

---------

Re the costs, you can send a signed & dated costs assessment too.  A day off work and estimated travel costs plus £550 application fees (no you can't add interest to court fees, and nor can they). Or (better) send it separately to the local court, once you have a hearing date because then you'll know if it's one hearing, and you will be able to attach the CNBC receipt to prove you paid £550 in fees.

Which is your local court? Did you tell us?

Thanks @coupon-mad will put your version of 82  ( shall I put it in bold on the WS?)

I live in Pinner/Harrow but work in Borehamwood, Currently we are looking to relocate to Wimbledon ( this whole farce actually lost us a tenancy). So Borehamwood potentially would be preferable 

JoeN1988

Coupon-mad said:

Given that I am going further and declaring the unserved claims x 2 to be expired and thus, time barred and as such, I am disputing the jurisdiction of the court to dispense with service and allow the two claims to continue, this application also relies upon CPR 11 (but due to the lack of service, I cannot also acknowledge service, which that rule assumes a defendant can). In addition, I further rely upon CPR 16.4(1)(e) and 16PD3 and 16PD7, because I say that the expired POC fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action".

I really hope this isn't taken as petty criticism, but could the repetitive use of the "Oxford comma" be avoided here?

I would have no clue on how to form the paragraph better, and will gladly get my coat of told to "go forth".

Coupon-mad

Yes you are right - too many commas.  I do like an Oxford comma!   Could probably lose the second comma in each sentence quoted there.

  

this whole farce actually lost us a tenancy

Even more reason why I think: if you are forced to defend these claims (the Judge would be barking mad but it is possible) you should consider a  counterclaim. But let's cross that bridge when it comes to it.

JoeN1988

Coupon-mad said:

Yes you are right - too many commas.  I do like an Oxford comma!   Could probably lose the second comma in each sentence quoted there.

  

this whole farce actually lost us a tenancy

Even more reason why I think: if you are forced to defend these claims (the Judge would be barking mad but it is possible) you should consider a  counterclaim. But let's cross that bridge when it comes to it.

Phew, i was nervous pointing that out!

Difficult to offer constructive criticism when I have so little advice to offer!

The spelling mistake in my post is also duly noted and left unedited for my hubris.

Zbubuman

FYI ALL - currently on hold to make payment. was just advised that as of 01/05/24 fees have gone up 10%. It is now £303 to apply for set aside. 

Meaning I will have to go through all the paperwork, change the figures and re-submit. 

Coupon-mad

And meaning the Claimant's eventual bill is much higher!

Zbubuman

All done, paid and resubmitted Amended WS and Draft Orders with correct fee amount.  Now we wait. 

Will definitely pour myself a large scotch this evening.