Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • wexpy
    • By wexpy 6th Apr 19, 12:36 AM
    • 12Posts
    • 4Thanks
    wexpy
    VCS Court Claim
    • #1
    • 6th Apr 19, 12:36 AM
    VCS Court Claim 6th Apr 19 at 12:36 AM
    Hello forum members.

    As background to my thread. The driver received a hybrid ,' this is not a parking charge notice' affixed to windscreen in a VCS operated permit only car park back in November 18. The driver parked there believing it was OK, as they are an employee of the landowner, and had heard colleagues say it was fine to use it at weekends.

    The driver then received an 'early' NTK, but stupidly forgot to appeal in time, and then went on a long holiday and even more stupidly forgot to take the details with them, and so returned to a LBC. A SAR was sent and replied to in time. A subsequent claim letter was sent by VCS and the AOS completed on the 30 March. Have been reading lots of threads and feeling rather daunted by the work ahead, but keen to defend.

    The link to my docs is below (first chance to mess up how to do things here), but hopefully will work. hxxps://1drv.ms/f/s!ApjXDzKJzlcgcVGrixjqUBqe9KM.

    I have seen a defence by bargepole but not sure I can use it as it states that the driver never entered the car park? There is also one in the newbie thread that rellates to the hybrid
    PCN by coupon-mad, which I could base my defence.

    I'm pretty sure the case will go to Sheffield County Court where i am based.

    Thanks for your guidance


    In the County Court
    Claim No. XXXXXXXX
    Between
    Vehicle Control Services Limited
    (Claimant)
    -and-

    XXXXXXXX
    (Defendant)

    ________
    DEFENCE
    ________
    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The Defendant denies that any contract was entered into with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    3. On the material date, the Defendant was at [INSERT AT PLACE OF WORK, ABROAD, OR WHICHEVER APPLIES], and did not at any time enter the car park in question.

    4. In order to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, the Claimant is required to comply with the strict statutory conditions set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). The Claimant has failed to do so, and cannot, therefore, hold the Defendant liable.

    5. The Claimant is known, in reported cases, to abrogate reliance on POFA, and to attempt to hold keepers of vehicles liable on an assumption, on balance of probabilities, that the keeper was also the driver. That assumption clearly cannot be made in this case.

    6. In summary, the Claimant has no cause of action in this matter, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.


    Statement of Truth

    I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

    Signature

    Name

    Date
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Apr 19, 12:56 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,325 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 6th Apr 19, 12:56 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Apr 19, 12:56 PM
    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
    .
    • wexpy
    • By wexpy 6th Apr 19, 2:34 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    wexpy
    • #3
    • 6th Apr 19, 2:34 PM
    • #3
    • 6th Apr 19, 2:34 PM
    Hello KeithP. It was the 29 March
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Apr 19, 2:42 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,325 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 6th Apr 19, 2:42 PM
    • #4
    • 6th Apr 19, 2:42 PM
    It was the 29 March
    Originally posted by wexpy
    With a Claim Issue Date of 29th March, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 1st May 2019 to file your Defence.

    That's over three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
    8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    .
    • wexpy
    • By wexpy 6th Apr 19, 7:03 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    wexpy
    • #5
    • 6th Apr 19, 7:03 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Apr 19, 7:03 PM
    Thanks Keith. Will post defence for feedback. Cheers.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 6th Apr 19, 7:28 PM
    • 11,091 Posts
    • 14,869 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #6
    • 6th Apr 19, 7:28 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Apr 19, 7:28 PM
    Did VCS add an extra 60 to the claim ???

    It is another point to show a judge they VCS are attempting to scam you ......

    VCS ADD ON A FAKE 60 ?
    In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, VCS, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of 60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. >>>> thanks to bargepole
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • wexpy
    • By wexpy 7th Apr 19, 10:52 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    wexpy
    • #7
    • 7th Apr 19, 10:52 AM
    • #7
    • 7th Apr 19, 10:52 AM
    But of course. I will certainly mention this in the defence
    • D_P_Dance
    • By D_P_Dance 7th Apr 19, 12:40 PM
    • 277 Posts
    • 374 Thanks
    D_P_Dance
    • #8
    • 7th Apr 19, 12:40 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Apr 19, 12:40 PM
    Get your MP on board, they are totally on your side.

    On 18th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

    Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

    Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.
    Treat everyday as your last one on earth! and one day you will be right.
    • wexpy
    • By wexpy 11th Apr 19, 10:35 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    wexpy
    • #9
    • 11th Apr 19, 10:35 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Apr 19, 10:35 PM
    Thanks D P Dance. I will do that...saw this in the news...lets hope so.

    To add to the background. The vehicle received 2 x 'not a PCN' as it was parked overnight. One in the evening and one early morning. My initial post was about the morning one, but have since re eived a court claim for the earlier 'not a PCN'.

    In the SAR and email to VCS it was requested they ensure all outstanding claims were addressed as one, and both ref numbers were quoted. Now there are two separate court claims. Can this be used as a point in my defence showing that they are unreasonable etc?

    Thanks
    • wexpy
    • By wexpy 11th Apr 19, 10:45 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    wexpy
    Claim dated 1 Apr 2019, AOS completed 11 Apr 2019
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Apr 19, 10:49 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,325 Thanks
    KeithP
    Claim dated 1 Apr 2019, AOS completed 11 Apr 2019
    Originally posted by wexpy
    With a Claim Issue Date of 1st April, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 7th May 2019 to file your Defence.

    That's nearly four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
    8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Apr 19, 10:52 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,985 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The vehicle received 2 x 'not a PCN' as it was parked overnight. One in the evening and one early morning.
    In the SAR and email to VCS it was requested they ensure all outstanding claims were addressed as one, and both ref numbers were quoted. Now there are two separate court claims. Can this be used as a point in my defence showing that they are unreasonable etc?
    Yes and you could add that the fact they have chosen to restrict the claim to one PCN is reasonably taken by the Defendant to mean that the first PCN has been cancelled, given that they breached the IPC Code of Practice regarding issuing two PCNs:

    19. Period of Parking
    Parking operators must ensure that they only issue parking charges in accordance with their advertised terms on any site. Such terms shall not entitle any operator to issue more than one parking charge in the same calendar day for the same parking event. In the event of a new calendar day the operator must not issue a further parking charge for the same parking event within a 12 hour period from when the previous parking charge was issued. Where a vehicle is moved at any point, this constitutes a new parking event.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • wexpy
    • By wexpy 11th Apr 19, 10:55 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    wexpy
    Draft defence below

    IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

    CLAIM No:!


    BETWEEN:



    -and-
    (Defendant)



    DEFENCE


    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed or at all.

    2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXXX car park on XX/XX/XX.!

    3.The Particulars of Claim do not specify the legal basis upon which the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

    5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in such a manner which is difficult to be read from a vehicle entering the area, and as an employee of the landowner who believed it was acceptable to park on the site as was the case in the past, unexpected and was not seen. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    6. The Claimant’s signage is unlit and therefore illegible in poor natural light in any event.

    7. The facts are whilst using the car park situated at XXXX the driver incurred a "Parking Charge", the alleged offence was "Vehicle not displaying a valid permit". It is denied that any contract was agreed or offered in prominent large lettering which resulted in the Defendant believing the Car Park was Free to use.

    8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case 100. The claim includes an additional 60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name!
    Signature
    Date
    • wexpy
    • By wexpy 11th Apr 19, 11:11 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    wexpy
    Hi Coupon mad, thanks for the tip. Just checked and the tickets are on different calendar days and more than 12 hours apart. Can i still go with being unreasonable and not implementing a reasonable request?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Apr 19, 11:13 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,985 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yep add it in and still have this:

    add that the fact they have chosen to restrict the claim to one PCN is reasonably taken by the Defendant to mean that the first PCN has been cancelled,
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • wexpy
    • By wexpy 15th Apr 19, 10:26 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    wexpy
    Another go at my defence...any comments would be be gratefully received. The driver has received two court claims for two PCNs for the same alleged offence. The first court claim received was for the later PCN, and the second court claim received (2 days later) was for the earlier PCN.

    VCS were requested as part of a SAR to bring all charge notices against the defendant under a single claim.

    DEFENCE

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXXX car park on XX/XX/XX.

    2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

    2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.

    3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

    5.1. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in such a manner which is difficult to be read from a vehicle entering the area, and as it was acceptable to park on the site in the past, unexpected and was not seen. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    5.2. The Claimant’s signage is unlit and therefore illegible in poor natural light in any event.

    5.3. The facts are whilst using the car park situated at XXXX the driver incurred a "Parking Charge", the alleged offence was "Parked without displaying a valid permit". It is denied that any contract was agreed or offered in prominent large lettering which resulted in the Defendant believing the Car Park was Free to use which was the case in the recent past.

    5.4. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

    5.5. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

    6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient propietary proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

    6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

    7. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case 100. The claim includes an additional 60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    8. The Claimant has acted unreasonably and has not acted upon a reasonable request by the Defendant to bring all 'charge notices' against them under a single claim. The fact they have chosen to restrict the claim to one PCN is reasonably taken by the Defendant to mean that the first PCN has been cancelled

    9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


    (statement of truth and signature and date go here)
    Last edited by wexpy; 16-04-2019 at 5:59 AM. Reason: Amend wording of defence
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Apr 19, 11:25 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,985 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    This bit doesn't quite flow, you need a full stop after 'in the past' & delete the next words.
    5.1. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in such a manner which is difficult to be read from a vehicle entering the area, and as it was acceptable to park on the site in the past, unexpected and was not seen.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • wexpy
    • By wexpy 24th Apr 19, 10:27 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    wexpy
    Thanks Coupon Mad. I wasnt sure about even including it, as it may implicate who was driving. I'll make amends and repost. Can i check ...i assume i use the exact same defence for the second claim? If I win (jumping the gun here) would i request at that point for the other claim to be dismissed given the circumstances are exactly the same and the defence the same?


    DEFENCE

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXXX car park on XX/XX/XX.

    2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

    2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.

    3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

    5.1. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in such a manner which is difficult to be read from a vehicle entering the area, and as it was acceptable to park on the site in the past. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    5.2. The Claimant’s signage is unlit and therefore illegible in poor natural light in any event.

    5.3. The facts are whilst using the car park situated at XXXX the driver incurred a "Parking Charge", the alleged offence was "Parked without displaying a valid permit". It is denied that any contract was agreed or offered in prominent large lettering which resulted in the Defendant believing the Car Park was Free to use which was the case in the recent past.

    5.4. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

    5.5. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

    6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient propietary proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

    6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

    7. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case 100. The claim includes an additional 60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    8. The Claimant has acted unreasonably and has not acted upon a reasonable request by the Defendant to bring all 'charge notices' against them under a single claim. The fact they have chosen to restrict the claim to one PCN is reasonably taken by the Defendant to mean that the first PCN has been cancelled

    9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


    (statement of truth and signature and date go here)
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 24th Apr 19, 11:25 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,325 Thanks
    KeithP
    Can i check ...i assume i use the exact same defence for the second claim? If I win (jumping the gun here) would i request at that point for the other claim to be dismissed given the circumstances are exactly the same and the defence the same?
    Originally posted by wexpy
    This is the first mention of a second claim.

    You have told us about a second PCN, but if there is not a second claim there is nothing for the judge to dismiss.

    If a second claim does materialise, you should advise the court and request that either the Claims be consolidated or they be heard together.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Apr 19, 11:39 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,985 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If there are two claims in play (or when the other one goes to a claim if it hasn't already) then search the forum for the words below* to add to the defences and to repeat AGAIN and AGAIN in a covering email or letter at every stage until a Judge finally sees it and consolidates the claims.

    *search for the words:

    Two claims? abuse of process

    ...and find the wording used in other defences and witness statements to force this issue of consolidation into ONE hearing. Several threads in 2019 have this wording.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

414Posts Today

5,453Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin