ECP / DCB Legal LOC 2

Coupon-mad

Yep, all of them. 

Re this claim, as it's a second ECP / DCB Legal court claim, only with different dates, you'll be using the Template Defence.

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 (within the 30 paragraph Template Defence) looks similar to the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

No need for more detail except in your case just add an extra paragraph to the Template Defence:

3.1.  (Copy what you find when you search the forum for Henderson v Henderson estoppel).

gavino76

Cause of Action estoppel 

7. The Claimant, being legally represented, knows, or should know, that issuing multiple claims based on similar facts and failing to address all relevant elements in a single claim constitutes an abuse of process. The Claimant has filed  claims with nearly identical particulars, with the only difference being the issue date of the parking charges.

8. 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.” 

9. 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''.

can i just check with you this is the correct paragraph to add to the template please?

Coupon-mad

Yes, if you firstly tell the Judge in a paragraph before that, what the two separate claim numbers / dates of claims are and the status of the other (first?) claim.

gavino76

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, they were not the driver.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 22/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

Cause of Action estoppel

4. 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. 

The Claimant has issued two claims with identical Particulars with the exception of the Parking Charge issue date.  

Claim 1 xxxxxx which was issued on   - relates to PCNs issued on 

Claim 2 yyyyyy which was issued on  - relates to a PCN issued on the , relying on the same facts.

4.1     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.”

4.2     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''.

4.3      The Claimant filing the first claim and failing to advance the whole case, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact Parking Charges against the Defendant. The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same.  The Defendant invites the court to dismiss the second claim under the grounds of cause of action estoppel.  In the alternative, the Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

All paragraphs renumbered, please let me know if this is correct. not sure about 3? re shahib_02

Coupon-mad

All good, including para 3 ... as long as you changed the date, obviously! You would not believe that some people have actually managed to copy shahib's parking event date...

gavino76

oops!! no, im all set. thanks so much, a real weight off my mind

gavino76

defence sent 2.02.25

gavino76

hello guys, need some help please, just received judgement in default for this, saying i have not replied to the claim form?? Im wondering if there has been some mix up with regard to my earlier problem of the response pack password not working? to recap:

LOC dec
CLAIM FORM jan
response pack password not working
X2 50 MIN phone calls to MCOL resulting in being directed to send AOS TO: AOS.CNBC@JUSTICE.GOV.UK (auto response email received)
defence sent 2 .02 .25 - have no evidence of a reply or response from this, but im hoping that if i sent it to the wrong address, it doesnt matter anyway as the AOS wasn't received.

I note at the bottom of the form that i may apply to the court office if i believe judgement has been entered wrongly, 
If i have sent it to the wrong address, are the court lenient?
i am on a low income (minimum wage) will i get help with costs to set it aside?
what do i do now, i am panicking a bit im going on holiday tomorrow and don't want to miss anything i need to do

thank you for reading

Coupon-mad

If i have sent it to the wrong address, are the court lenient?

No. They aren't.

That's why the first 12 steps in our Template Defence is careful to give posters the exact email address to copy & paste and it's why we say 'you must get the acknowledgement'.

Where did you send it?

Do you qualify for Help with Fees? Read up on that because if yes, you may be able to apply free of charge to ask a judge to set aside the default CCJ.

P.S. Your password did work. It will work even now. You'll have misread a lower case 'l' (ell) for a capital I (eye) or a number 1. New posters here do that all the time and for some reason, don't think to try all three and wrongly assume their password isn't working.

gavino76

sent to
aos.cnbc@justice.gov.uk 8th jan
receievd automated response:

Thank you for emailing the acknowledgement of service team in the national business centre etc etc

I did try every single format i could have tried on the password. what should i do now?