2x Claim Form from CPS

LDast

KeithP said:
In that case your Defence filing deadline is 4pm on Thursday 6th March 2025.

Four days lost.

Wrong. I did find it in the CPRs a few months ago but can't be bothered to search for it again. The claim is deemed served on the fifth day after issue, irrespective of whether an AoS is submitted before the deemed date of service. This only applies to claims issued through MCOL.

I also confirmed that fact with a District Judge. So, with an issue date of 4th February and an AoS submitted, irrespective of the fact that it was submitted before the deemed date of service, the deadline for submitting the defence is 4pm on Monday 10th March.

Coupon-mad

clowncake said:

I have received 2x Claim forms from Complete Parking Services:
 

"*REG PLATE* (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of the parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at Lazarus House Car Park on *DATE* this incurring the parking charge"

Two claims. Should have been one consolidated claim but Gladstones don't check for that. It's all just data to them.

Change para 4 to this then add para 5 and re-number the rest of the Template:

4.  It is almost impossible to come up with facts in response to such incoherent POC. There is no specified breach allegation and no times of an alleged 'period of parking'. Liability as 'driver/keeper' is a boilerplate menu of choices and fails to state whether or not the Claimant seeks to rely upon the 'keeper liability' provisions of Schedule4 of the POFA 2012 and what 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' was purportedly breached by an unidentified driver. There are no specified contractual terms in these POC and no copy of the purported contract (sign) was sent at pre-action stage.  Lazarus House Car Park is hard to pinpoint. No town or postcode is stated in the POC. When the Defendant Googled it to try to narrow the issues, they were directed to several choices including a Council car park, accommodation for homeless people in various areas and a site in the USA with its own Wikipedia page. Whilst the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, in all other respects 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.


Cause of Action estoppel

5. The Defendant believes that the claim should be struck out along with the near duplicate claim number xxxxxxxx which was inexplicably filed separately, doubling the costs exposure for the parties and work for the court service.  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 woeful template Particulars with the exception of the Parking Charge issue date:

Claim 1 xxxxxx 

Claim 2 yyyyyy was issued on the same day.

5.1  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.”

5.2   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''.

5.3   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.

5.4.  The Defendant invites the court to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant, including striking out - of the Court's own motion without a hearing - (at the very least) the second claim under the grounds of 'cause of action estoppel', or to strike out both claims as hundreds of Judges have done, up and down the Country in recent months: full collated link: - Judgments pursuant to the authorities of Chan and Akande.

KeithP

In light of @LDast's most recent post on this thread, you now have a dilemma.

I'm sorry but I don't have a friendly District Judge that I can mention in my posts, but we all know that judges can be swayed by suggestions made to them.

clowncake

Coupon-mad said:

clowncake said:

I have received 2x Claim forms from Complete Parking Services:
 

"*REG PLATE* (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of the parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at Lazarus House Car Park on *DATE* this incurring the parking charge"

Two claims. Should have been one consolidated claim but Gladstones don't check for that. It's all just data to them.

Change para 4 to this then add para 5 and re-number the rest of the Template:

4.  It is almost impossible to come up with facts in response to such incoherent POC. There is no specified breach allegation and no times of an alleged 'period of parking'. Liability as 'driver/keeper' is a boilerplate menu of choices and fails to state whether or not the Claimant seeks to rely upon the 'keeper liability' provisions of Schedule4 of the POFA 2012 and what 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' was purportedly breached by an unidentified driver. There are no specified contractual terms in these POC and no copy of the purported contract (sign) was sent at pre-action stage.  Lazarus House Car Park is hard to pinpoint. No town or postcode is stated in the POC. When the Defendant Googled it to try to narrow the issues, they were directed to several choices including a Council car park, accommodation for homeless people in various areas and a site in the USA with its own Wikipedia page. Whilst the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, in all other respects 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.


Cause of Action estoppel

5. The Defendant believes that the claim should be struck out along with the near duplicate claim number xxxxxxxx which was inexplicably filed separately, doubling the costs exposure for the parties and work for the court service.  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 woeful template Particulars with the exception of the Parking Charge issue date:

Claim 1 xxxxxx 

Claim 2 yyyyyy was issued on the same day.

5.1  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.”

5.2   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''.

5.3   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.

5.4.  The Defendant invites the court to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant, including striking out - of the Court's own motion without a hearing - (at the very least) the second claim under the grounds of 'cause of action estoppel', or to strike out both claims as hundreds of Judges have done, up and down the Country in recent months: full collated link: - Judgments pursuant to the authorities of Chan and Akande.

Great, thank you.

I'm guessing that theres also no need for a wintess statement since its hard to pinpoint the location?

Le_Kirk

Your witness statement(s) will not be required for a while but they will be required as part of the process.

clowncake

KeithP said:

In light of @LDast's most recent post on this thread, you now have a dilemma.

I'm sorry but I don't have a friendly District Judge that I can mention in my posts, but we all know that judges can be swayed by suggestions made to them.

It is okay, I was planning on getting this all sent out and completed ASAP

Coupon-mad

Just follow the 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.  No WS yet.

clowncake

Coupon-mad said:

Just follow the 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.  No WS yet.

Okay, I just submitted the defence to the CNBC email for both claims and got the automated acknowlegment. 

Am I right in saying that this should all also update on MCOL?

Le_Kirk

clowncake said:

Coupon-mad said:

Just follow the 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.  No WS yet.

Okay, I just submitted the defence to the CNBC email for both claims and got the automated acknowledgment. 

Am I right in saying that this should all also update on MCOL?

It will (eventually) but CNBC are a bit behind in their admin!

Car1980

Who wrote those particulars? The work experience kid?

Half of it is just whinging they haven't been paid.