Another Euro Car Parks Case to Phone Hearing at St.Helens

runnerboy90

Good morning, I have been following the boards quite considerably over the last few months and so I deeply appreciate the support people are giving. 

I have a few small anomalies in the usual track of a case that I would like to first of all report to the boards but also potentially look for guidance as I can't seem to find exactly what I need. 

I currently am being pursued by Euro Car Parks by DCBL. Long story short 4 times I charged electric car and overstayed - signing was really insufficient and has since been changed to be clearer. I'm pretty confident of my defence as there are multiple mitigations here. 

These are separated between two claims

1. 3 combined claims - at Notice of Allocation to Small Claims Track (Hearing)
2. 1 claim - submitted Directions Questionnaire - cited Henderson v Henderson as well as standard language so far. 

Issues

Issue 1 - Court allocation - this was allocated to St. Helens as a phone hearing despite clear request in the Directions Questionnaire for it to be at my home court - I have written to St Helens Court twice and emailed twice in a timely manner and have received nothing back. I also explored CNBC but my understanding from the boards is it no longer sits with them. I have looked at the forums and followed similar emails as well as letters. I'm actually quite frustrated that it's not in person as given the threatening behaviour I was relishing the opportunity of going into court and discussing how completely unreasonable all of this is. 

Issue 2 - The Dates for the case are:-

June 16th - claimant pays the court trial fee. 
June 23rd - file at court and serve on each other the written evidence upon which they proposed to rely, which includes statements from the parties themselves if they wish to give evidence. Claimant's evidence must: a. be typed, double-lined spaced; contain numbered paragraphs; be paginated (including exhibits); be bound by a metal clip or similar (neither a paperclip nor bulldog clip being sufficient); provide evidence upon which the Claimant asserts it has the right to bring this claim. 

Strategy

- As I haven't received a response on reallocation, I am assuming it will proceed at St. Helens, DCBL will likely not pay the court trial fee and likely discontinue the case. 
- If they do and it goes to hearing, I should be ready to file Written Evidence between June 16th and June 23rd. Given I can't get a hold of St. Helens either by phone or by email, I will file by email and also by post to be safe using the same guidance as the claimant's evidence. 
- I will file a Witness Statement with Evidence at this point correct? The guidance on the paperwork doesn't say to do anything specifically and only gives advice to the Claimant as written above. 

Issue 3 - any advice on the additional claim and how to correctly use the Henderson v Henderson case or should I just follow the usual steps?

runnerboy90

Update:- 

1. I spoke with the court today after 90 mins and as goes allocation was told there was nothing that could be done regarding reallocation other than the emails and letters I have already sent (which haven't been read or responded to). 

2. I then asked around how to submit evidence as I would rather not drive up to St Helens from Bristol and was told this could be done by post or by emailing civil.sthelens.countycourt@justice.gov.uk - that it takes 8 weeks but to mark it urgent. (I said none of my other emails or letters that have also been marked urgent have even been responded to so how can I guarantee my evidence will be successfully submitted - they said they can't and the only way to guarantee would be to submit it in person in St. Helens.) They encouraged me to set up an in-person appointment by calling the number 01744 627252. 

3. I asked for any guidance on why the claimant has been given advice on how to file on the Notice but the defendant has not and they said I should seek legal advice. 

The level of admin for ECP/DCBL to inevitably drop the case is ridiculous. I've no doubt the court here are inundated as a result of bulk litigation here and this is just a terrible misuse of the court and people's time. 

Car1980

Try this https://hmcts-complaint-form-eng.form.service.justice.gov.uk/

DW190

runnerboy90 said:

Update:- 

1. I spoke with the court today after 90 mins and as goes allocation was told there was nothing that could be done regarding reallocation other than the emails and letters I have already sent (which haven't been read or responded to). 

 I was told by Manchester CC to start the Subject Line of the email with "Hearing Date ??/??/????" 

Prioritorised by hearing dates.

runnerboy90

Both great bits of advice. 

Car1980 said: make a complaint - I can't post links being a newbie

I have done this and provided considerable amounts of evidence of the efforts I've gone to here. Says you will get a response within 10 days. Thanks. 

DW190 said:

runnerboy90 said:

Update:- 

1. I spoke with the court today after 90 mins and as goes allocation was told there was nothing that could be done regarding reallocation other than the emails and letters I have already sent (which haven't been read or responded to). 

 I was told by Manchester CC to start the Subject Line of the email with "Hearing Date ??/??/????" 

Prioritorised by hearing dates.

Great suggestion - I have also just done this - I will keep updated with outcomes. 

runnerboy90

I’ve just received a response from the court regarding my request for the case to be transferred to my local county court.

"The Judge has considered the case file and documents on the transfer in to the County Court. The Judge has decided to list the case for a Telephone Hearing. This means, as no parties are required to attend the County Court at St Helens, there is little need for the matter to be transferred out to another County Court."

"With regards to the Evidence you wish to file, you can do so by email (as long as it is under 50 pages and in a Word or PDF format and contains a statement of truth). You might like to read the Civil Procedure Rules at -justice link- where you can find further information."

So now I’m in two minds.

On the one hand, the fact it’s now a telephone hearing means travel isn’t an issue, and to be honest I’m confident in my defence and happy to fight it that way.

On the other hand, this has become a matter of principle for me. The way these cases are processed often feels stacked in favour of private parking firms, and I feel that standing up for proper procedure, including fair allocation of venue, is worth doing, not just for myself, but because it’s part of a wider problem in the system that needs exposed rather than backing down which maintains the status quo.

So I’m asking:

Is there any real benefit or precedent in continuing to push for a transfer, even with a telephone hearing in place?

Or would it be more strategic to accept the telephone hearing and focus all my energy on preparing a solid defence?

runnerboy90

My proposed response:-  

Dear xxxxx

Thank you for your response.

While I note the Judge has listed the matter for a Telephone Hearing, I must respectfully maintain my position that this case has been misallocated, in breach of CPR 26.2A(2) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 7.1, which state that a defended claim against an individual must be transferred to the defendant’s local court.

Whether the hearing is by telephone or in person is not the issue; the allocation itself is procedurally incorrect. I ask again that this matter be put before a Judge for judicial reconsideration under CPR 3.3(4) and that I receive written confirmation of the outcome, including reasons if the request is refused.

In parallel, I have:

• Filed a formal complaint via the HMCTS service, and

• I’ve raised this matter with my MP, as it reflects a broader pattern of systemic court allocation errors linked to bulk litigation by private parking firms. These errors, along with the aggressive legal tactics used, suggest a deliberate misuse of the civil justice system to pressure individuals into unfair settlements.

I respectfully ask the Court to correct the allocation error without placing further burden on me as a litigant in person and without requiring an N244 application, given the clear language of the Rules.

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxx

Coupon-mad

runnerboy90 said:

My proposed response:-  

Dear xxxxx

Thank you for your response.

While I note the Judge has listed the matter for a Telephone Hearing, I must respectfully maintain my position that this case has been misallocated, in breach of CPR 26.2A(2) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 7.1, which state that a defended claim against an individual must be transferred to the defendant’s local court.

Whether the hearing is by telephone or in person is not the issue; the allocation itself is procedurally incorrect. I ask again that this matter be put before a Judge for judicial reconsideration under CPR 3.3(4) and that I receive written confirmation of the outcome, including reasons if the request is refused.

In parallel, I have:

• Filed a formal complaint via the HMCTS service, and

• I’ve raised this matter with my MP, as it reflects a broader pattern of systemic court allocation errors linked to bulk litigation by private parking firms. These errors, along with the aggressive legal tactics used, suggest a deliberate misuse of the civil justice system to pressure individuals into unfair settlements.

I respectfully ask the Court to correct the allocation error without placing further burden on me as a litigant in person and without requiring an N244 application, given the clear language of the Rules.

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxx

Perfect. That's exactly what to do and say.

This is procedurally wrong and does prejudice defendants.