Biting back with a vengeance

doubledotcom

BTW, as far as I am aware, MCOL can be used against more than one defendant, but with important limitations:

• Defendant cap: MCOL only allows claims against up to two defendants.

• Jurisdiction: Both defendants must have an address for service within England or Wales.

• Addresses: You must input separate service addresses for each defendant (usually their registered office for companies).

• Claim form: The system generates one claim form listing both defendants. They will each get served separately.

• Procedure after defence: If one or both defend, the case will still be transferred to the your local county court in the usual way.

If you want to sue three or more defendants, you cannot use MCOL — you’d have to issue using paper N1 claim form sent to the Civil National Business Centre.

So in your case, if you are targeting CP Plus Ltd and Ranger Services Ltd, MCOL works fine. If you also wanted to include GroupNexus Ltd, you’d be outside MCOL’s limits and need to go via CNBC with a paper N1.

GettingOnInYears

Good solid advice there. Thanks again.
Having now given them until next Friday to come to an arrangement, I'm going to leave it set to that. Time isn't an issue for me - as apart from going in to visit my wife, I can take things as they come, in no specific order.
I honestly do want this to go to court though. 
I suspect that they won't make an appearance for - what to them is a trivial matter.
I know you mentioned aggravated damages not being part of the proceedings, however I got an amount of £1200 added in my win defending a claim against my wife's business against a Digital Direct claim for over £12k. I walked away with £3506.24. They didn't send anyone to state their case so the judge was very sympathetic. He initially advised that in cases like that, he generally only awards a bit of parking charges, postage costs etc which he said amounts generally to around £250. I put it to him that the egregious conduct of the claimant had been very stressful and had destroyed our plans of a Golden Wedding trip abroad. I had prepared a whole list of Direct Digital's misdeeds including them being found guilty in the Australian Supreme Court and fined 210K AUS $ for the same conduct they used in my wife's situation. 
He agreed and said, OK I'll add compensation for damage - or similar words - and allowed me my full costs that I presented, saying that I might have a job getting them to pay me. This was all based on costs and not as a counterclaim.
I gave them 7 days before I handed things to the bailiffs and on the last day they called me for my bank details.
So, I think - not expect but hope- that a similar scenario would work here especially when I will inevitably break into tears when my personal circumstances are brought in.
Nevertheless I acknowledge that your comments may prove to be the correct way to do things - but if I don't give it a go - I'll never know.
Thanks again for your words of wisdom
Actually, looking at the case details on Legal; beagles the additional compensation was for vexatious conduct - I think that would stand as the same as aggravated damages. The case was heard by Deputy District Judge Baird If you look at legal beagles and search for lynnzer you'll find the details.

doubledotcom

That is all very well, but is a unique circumstance. What carries across from your past win:

• Unreasonable behaviour costs: Small claims can award costs for a party’s unreasonable conduct (often labelled “vexatious” informally). That’s a costs remedy, not “aggravated damages.” It’s available here too—if they behave unreasonably after issue.
• Non-attendance leverage: If the defendant doesn’t turn up or engage properly, judges can be sympathetic and may award more (including costs for unreasonable conduct).

What does not carry across (important):

• “Aggravated damages” are rarely awarded on small claims and are not the same as unreasonable-behaviour costs. Keep them out of the PoC.
• Personal distress may support data-protection distress damages, but emotive presentation (e.g. tears) is not a strategy. Judges prefer clinical, fact-linked evidence of impact.

For now:

1. Hold the deadline you set. If they don’t accept by next Friday, issue via MCOL the next business day.

2. Quantum in claim: “Damages £1,000 for distress under ss.168–169 DPA 2018, interest under s.69 CCA 1984, plus the issue fee.”
   Optional: add “or such sum not exceeding £1,500.”

3. PoC discipline: Use the concise PoC suggested as drafted (material facts only; hooks to evidence). No exhibits. Serve within 14 days after deemed service if you tick “Particulars to follow.”

4. Costs posture: Keep one clean without prejudice save as to costs (WP-SaC) offer on file (you’ve done that). If they stonewall or run template denials despite their admission about the missing entrance sign, you’ll have a platform for unreasonable-behaviour costs at the end.

5. Mediation: Accept it. Be courteous, restate the offer, and note their prior admission. If they play games, it helps your costs position.

6. Prepare, don’t perform: In your witness statement (further down the line), set out: missing entrance sign (their admission), DVLA access date/time, why there was no reasonable cause, the anxiety caused, and how long it persisted. Keep it short, dated, and supported. No grandstanding; no SRA threats alongside settlement.

7. Expect attendance: Assume they will defend. Build the case to win on the documents, not on their (unlikely) non-appearance.

How to frame “vexatious” point properly:

• Don’t plead “aggravated damages.” Instead, keep a closing line in your WS and skeleton:
  “Given the defendant’s admission that no entrance sign was present and their refusal to settle, the claimant invites the court to consider costs for unreasonable conduct under the small-claims regime.”

Bottom line:

• Stop aiming for a repeat of a unique outcome. This case should be won on no entrance sign ⇒ no reasonable cause ⇒ no lawful basis ⇒ distress, plus a clean record of reasonableness to unlock unreasonable-behaviour costs if they mess about. Issue on time, keep offers tidy, and let the court see you did everything right.

GettingOnInYears

They haven't responded to my last email asking for out of court conciliation so ----
Claim filed online. I will send the full POC on Wednesday next week as that's when the SAR response time expires. It's another nail in the coffin when they don't respond

GettingOnInYears

Well, the time for them filing a defence runs out on Friday. Problem is there's no defence when they already admitted the lack of an entry sign which is the crux of the whole claim. 
In the meantime I've been very busy looking at all the case law etc on claiming for the unconscionable behaviour and I think I hit the jackpot when I discovered the Vento award scheme.
My case sits firmly in it's boundaries for an award based on the upper level 2 or bottom of level 3. 
All I can do now is wait until Friday then go for a Summary judgement from the details in my full witness statement which is now complete with videos to support the extreme mental distress I was under that I ask for consideration under the eggshell skull rule.

GettingOnInYears

The defences were filed on Thursday. If defences is the relevant word, As far as I can see it, they've !!!!!! in their own nest.
They've tried to shrug off the lack of compliance to the BPA Code of Practice as being a matter of confidentiality between themselves and the BPA that has no bearing on the claim. I mean ....... 
Both CP Plus and Ranger Services have tried either knowingly or by stupidity to include comments that are untrue or wrongly made. When I picked up on these I double checked and found other things. For instance in the claim that the SAR's were not compliant I ascertained that only CP Plus sent me documents. I concede that they were received in time, but that they were missing documents sent between both defendants. They claim that they share services in the SAR letter sent with documents that only show one signatory to the letter sent. That was CP Plus so effectively Ranger Services didn't comply with the SAR. I bring other important points related to this neat GropNexus situation applied here.
I'm going for Summary Judgement as soon as my chequebook arrives. I have a compelling case and closing section of my reasons for a non hearing are designed to be quite a tearjerker, albeit being completely true. : Shown here -
"The Claimant respectfully asks the Court to be aware that this application for summary judgment is not only procedurally justified but personally urgent.

The time and emotional energy required for a contested hearing would inevitably detract from the Claimant’s ability to be present with his wife,

whose cognitive decline is now entering its final, irreversible stage. Each hour spent in litigation is an hour lost from the narrowing window in which

meaningful connection remains possible. The highly emotional presentation of the facts of the personal circumstances in a court hearing would be

humiliating and inevitably result in tearful moments. The Claimant therefore seeks resolution at this stage not out of convenience, but from a place of profound necessity and care."

The POC's are here so you can see what i sent, then the defences and rebuttals are next.
I'll be including my full witness statement, all annexes referred to, links to my personal Google Drive videos of my wife's horrific lapse into her Alzheimers etc.
Thanks to @doubledotcom for the directions he has given me, and even at this stage I may have been a bit over the top with my witness statement wording etc but in a summary judgement with no hearing, the judge will overlook the matters he may think are of little relevance..

Particulars of claim - 
CP Plus defence
CP Plus defence rebuttal points
Ranger Services defence
Ranger defence rebuttal points

GettingOnInYears

I've now out them on the back foot once more.
I really don't want a court hearing, and I am convinced of the summary judgement application being the way to go, but the defendants can ask for a court hearing instead. I can do that, but prefer not to so I've now sent a wolf in sheep's clothing or ambush email:
Please be aware that the Google Drive link is within the bundle that will be supporting my eggshell skull consideration, but it may be somewhat distressing to watch- so please take care.
Here's the email I sent:
Dear Ms Yates,
I write to inform you that I will shortly be filing an application for summary judgment under CPR Part 24, on the basis that your defence discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim and that there is no other compelling reason for a trial.
In light of this, I respectfully suggest that you consider awaiting my service of the application bundle before completing the Directions Questionnaire. The bundle will include a full witness statement, draft order, and supporting documents. It also sets out personal circumstances that make a contested hearing particularly distressing and disproportionate.
I offer this notice as a matter of decency and procedural courtesy — something not previously extended to me — in the hope of avoiding a hearing that would likely reflect poorly on your position and generate significant empathy in my favour. I have previously referred to the tragic nature of my personal circumstances, and I reiterate that. My claim will invoke the eggshell skull principle, which I trust you are familiar with, and will be supported by video evidence.
I attach here a Google Drive link to one such clip, illustrating the severity of my wife's condition and the emotional toll it has taken. Several further clips will be included in the bundle. This particular video is far less traumatic than others, but still difficult to watch. It reflects the reality that brought me to the brink of suicide — a fact I do not share lightly.
The concluding section of my summary judgment application reads as follows:

"The Claimant respectfully asks the Court to be aware that this application for summary judgment is not only procedurally justified but personally urgent.

The time and emotional energy required for a contested hearing would inevitably detract from the Claimant’s ability to be present with his wife, whose cognitive decline is now entering its final, irreversible stage. Each hour spent in litigation is an hour lost from the narrowing window in which meaningful connection remains possible. The highly emotional presentation of the facts of the personal circumstances in a court hearing would be humiliating and inevitably result in tearful moments. The Claimant therefore seeks resolution at this stage not out of convenience, but from a place of profound necessity and care.

You are, of course, entitled to proceed as you see fit. However, I believe it would be in the interests of all parties to review the application before incurring further time and cost. The time for reconciliation or mediation has long passed, but I respectfully ask that you consider accepting a summary judgment hearing in absentia.
Out of respect, I will include this email in my bundle to demonstrate that I have given you a fair and reasonable opportunity to engage constructively. A response would be appreciated.
I expect to file and serve the full bundle within the next fortnight, as I must now attend to more urgent personal matters.
Yours sincerely,

ChirpyChicken

I am lost.......

Coupon-mad

Me too. If they have defended you can't get Summary Judgment, AFAIK.

GettingOnInYears

Summary Judgment in Defended Claims (CPR 24)

Under Civil Procedure Rule 24, summary judgment may be granted against a defendant (or claimant) if the court finds:

• No real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and

• No other compelling reason for a trial

This applies even if a defence has been filed, provided that the defence is weak, incoherent, or fails to raise a genuine issue requiring trial.
----------------------------------------------------
The defence is not only weak, they have admitted the very basis of the claim that they didn't have an entry sign at the roadway entrance, That makes them non compliant to the BPA Code of practice which strips them of reasonable cause to access the DVLA details. A failure of compliance to the BPA Code of Practice is the cornerstone of everything that springs from it. No court in the land - on the balance of probability - or even the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt, would say that the admission of a missing sign when it's a condition required doesn't point to non compliance of most everything from that point on. 
Non compliance to the ATA Code = non compliance to the KADOE contract = a breach of Consumer Rights Act -  and so on. Even the Supreme court gives credence to that: Lord Sumption’s comments on signage in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 were central to the court’s finding that the £85 charge was not unfair or unlawful. He emphasized that clear and prominent signage was crucial to establishing a binding contract and ensuring fairness under consumer law. It matters not that this case isn't about a parking ticket. the same principle applies where signage is the issue.
The only way that they could escape liability would be prove that on the balance of probabilities that the entrance sign was in place - not that they didn't know that it was missing. They have already conceded that point.
They have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim due to their own admissions.

Read the rebuttals to their defence and see if I'm correct in my assertions. They're a bit long winded but I only get one shot at a summary judgement ----- ah I think perhaps you though about summary dismissal - that would be correct for the interpretation of it not being possible once a defence is filed. They're completely different things
Quite apart from that, the email I sent as in my last post is another means to hit them below the belt. If they don't answer at all then it's just another instance of disrespectful behaviour to add to my claim, and if they do respond then I at least get the MCOL to have a summary judgement without an actual court hearing which would work well for me anyway. 
I have another email to send in due course to add to the aggravation I'm sending their way. More of that in due course but it will be to ask them to drop the defence, back out and accept the claim or risk a very intimidating presence in a hearing, or even by an in-absentia hearing. It may well give them a little actual credibility to a judge at any future hearing and perhaps give them some little savings on the costs and compensation awards. I mean - they have no real prospect of winning anyway.
CP Plus defence rebuttal
Ranger Services defence rebuttal