Those are real LoC. They do not come from the court. LoC or Letter Before Claim (LBC), are the same thing. We don’t need to see anything except the first page. You can ignore the forms that came with it.
The first letters from Moorside Legal acting as debt collectors and were for £170 each but estimating court costs too. As advised, they were to be ignored at that stage.
Are you satisfied that the address they are using is the one you will use for service of documents? If not, you will need to respond and inform them that they need to use your other address for service. If not, then you can just wait for the actual N1SDT Claim Form to arrive.
There are two options for dealing with Moorside Legal’s two separate Letters of Claim.
Option 1: Suggest Consolidation of Both ClaimsThis involves writing to Moorside to ask them to withdraw one of the Letters of Claim and combine both claims into a single claim to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). If they refuse, you can later raise the issue of abuse of process during court proceedings.
How it Works:
Inform the claimant that two separate claims are disproportionate and unfair.
Request that they combine both claims into one to save costs and time. If they refuse and proceed with two claims, raise the issue with the court as part of your defence or in a strike-out application.
Legal Basis:
CPR Rule 1.1 – Overriding Objective
CPR Rule 3.4(2)(b) – Abuse of Process
Henderson v Henderson (1843)
Benefits:
1. Shows your reasonableness to the court by trying to resolve the issue early.
2. Could lead to lower overall costs if the claimant agrees to consolidate the claims.
3.Reduces the risk of facing two separate claims and associated court fees.
Risks:
1. It gives the claimant a chance to fix their mistake by combining the claims.
2. If they consolidate, you may not get a chance to argue cause of action estoppel later.
Option 2: Let the Claimant Issue Two ClaimsThis involves allowing the claimant to issue two separate claims. Once the first claim is dealt with, you can argue
cause of action estoppel to get the second claim struck out as an abuse of process. This tactic exposes the claimant’s vexatious conduct and is likely to result in a costs order being awarded in your favour for the claimants unreasonable behaviour.
Additionally, the claimant’s bulk litigator, Moorside Legal, is known to issue claims that breach CPR 16.4(1)(a) by failing to include a clear statement of facts in the Particulars of Claim (PoC). Based on persuasive appeal case law, including
CEL v Chan [2023] and
CPMS v Akande [2024], it is highly likely that the first claim will be struck out at the allocation stage for failing to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Therefore, it is expected that the first claim will not proceed to a hearing due to these procedural errors.
How it Works:
Defend the first claim on its merits, but expect it to be struck out at allocation stage due to the claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). When the second claim is issued, argue that it is barred by cause of action estoppel because the claimant should have brought both claims together. Include a request for a strike-out in your defence as a preliminary matter, inviting the court to strike out the second claim under CPR 3.4(2)(b) without the need for a separate application.
Legal Basis:
Cause of Action Estoppel (Henderson v Henderson)
Res Judicata (
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002])
CPR Rule 3.4(2)(b) – Abuse of Process
CPR Rule 16.4(1)(a) – Failure to Include a Clear Statement of Facts in the Claim Form
White Book annotation 38.6.1 – Costs for Unreasonable Behaviour
Benefits:
1. Stronger legal argument – cause of action estoppel is well-established in case law.
2. The claimant’s bulk litigator is known to make procedural errors in claim forms, meaning the first claim is likely to be struck out at allocation stage.
3. Exposes the claimant’s conduct – shows the claimant is wasting court time by pursuing two claims.
4.Potential to recover costs – you can request a costs order for unreasonable behaviour if the claimant’s conduct is found to be vexatious.
5. Higher chance of the second claim being struck out – courts do not like multiple claims for related matters.
6. No need to pay the £303 N244 application fee – cause of action estoppel can be raised as part of your defence.
Costs Order for Unreasonable Behaviour:
Although CPR 27.14(2)(g) does not apply to the small claims track, the White Book annotation 38.6.1 states that costs may be awarded if a claimant has behaved unreasonably, particularly where a notice of discontinuance is served. The claimant’s conduct in issuing two separate claims for what is essentially the same matter can be argued to be unreasonable behaviour, and a costs order can be requested as part of the defence.
Which Option Is Better?
Option 2 (Let Them Issue Two Claims) is the better strategy if you want to expose the claimant’s abuse of process and vexatious conduct. It provides a stronger legal argument and increases your chances of recovering costs for the claimant’s unreasonable behaviour.
Additionally, given that the claimant’s bulk litigator, Moorside Legal, frequently issues claim forms that breach CPR 16.4(1)(a), the first claim is almost certain to be struck out at allocation stage anyway. This significantly strengthens the argument for cause of action estoppel in the second claim and increases the likelihood of obtaining a costs order for the claimant’s unreasonable behaviour.
Option 1 (Suggest Consolidation) is better if you want to be seen as cooperative and reasonable early on and prefer to handle just one claim to reduce the hassle of dealing with multiple claims.
In conclusion, Option 2 is what I would recommend as it gives a stronger legal argument using cause of action estoppel, exposes the claimant’s vexatious behaviour, and takes advantage of the likelihood that the first claim will be struck out for procedural errors. This strategy increases the chances of the second claim being struck out and costs being awarded in your favour.
