Period of validity

Missaver

Noted, thank you.

Missaver

Good news all - I had my hearing today via Skype video, and at the end, it was dismissed, so I won!!
Thank you to all that have helped and advised greatly which led to my win, it is such a relief this ticket is all over now.  
The main points the Judge dismissed were due to the dodgy contract (he will now refer it to the Attorney General) and also that there were no signs on the road disallowing parking which the claimant say there are. 
I was awarded half my costs requested, but am happy with that.

I have another 2 tickets re no permit bay parking, not reached LBC yet, am thinking of writing to PCM to ask them to cancel those in light of today's win, but will definitely fight those if i need to in future.

Thanks again all for all your helpful input, as someone else said, you are heros!

Le_Kirk

Very well done - a load (well one out of three) off your mind.

Castle

Missaver said:

Good news all - I had my hearing today via Skype video, and at the end, it was dismissed, so I won!!
Thank you to all that have helped and advised greatly which led to my win, it is such a relief this ticket is all over now.  
The main points the Judge dismissed were due to the dodgy contract (he will now refer it to the Attorney General) and also that there were no signs on the road disallowing parking which the claimant say there are. 
I was awarded half my costs requested, but am happy with that.

I'm assuming that you will be writing to the DVLA and asking for their comments in due course. 

Missaver

Castle said:

Missaver said:

Good news all - I had my hearing today via Skype video, and at the end, it was dismissed, so I won!!
Thank you to all that have helped and advised greatly which led to my win, it is such a relief this ticket is all over now.  
The main points the Judge dismissed were due to the dodgy contract (he will now refer it to the Attorney General) and also that there were no signs on the road disallowing parking which the claimant say there are. 
I was awarded half my costs requested, but am happy with that.

I'm assuming that you will be writing to the DVLA and asking for their comments in due course. 

I had already written to them recently, but they replied as expected (page 30 of this thread)

Castle

I was thinking about a follow up complaint given the court outcome.

Missaver

Castle said:

I was thinking about a follow up complaint given the court outcome.

OK, I will do something about it, thanks for the heads up 

Coupon-mad

Well done, what an epic journey for you - ANOTHER PCM ONE BITES THE DUST!

A reminder of your first post back in 2018 and that this was PCM:

A couple of weeks ago on 28 July, the driver parked outside the block being moved into and was given the OK by concierge but only today received a Parking Charge - keeper liability, the first I knew of this. There was no windscreen ticket at the time. They parking charge States a breach of the contractual terms and conditions parked within a restricted area'. It is from PCM, an IPC member.

I have another 2 tickets re no permit bay parking, not reached LBC yet, am thinking of writing to PCM to ask them to cancel those in light of today's win, but will definitely fight those if i need to in future.

Include this wording if the location and facts are pretty much the same as the case today:

Cause of Action estoppel

PCM's solicitor will be aware that by detaching (or allowing to remain detached) elements of alleged debt - or series of alleged debts - and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.  Claim no xxxxxxxx was won at a hearing by me about this same car park/car and facts, on 18.5.2020 and it is your problem, not mine, that PCM failed to advance your whole case/parking charges with that claim, and that your claim was not upheld by the court. 

Any cause of action is now extinguished for any other similar fact parking charges against myself as the Defendant - in short, the cases that are at Letter before Claim or debt collection stage are effectively now barred.  Any further contact regarding other PCNs will be unwarranted harassment and I specifically now invoke my right to ask PCM's Data Protection Officer to cease processing my data and to erase it now.

The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same as another filed by the same claimant and should you subsequently file more claims, I will apply for the second action to be struck out, with my full costs being borne by PCM Ltd.

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.”

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''.

Missaver

Coupon-mad said:

Well done, what an epic journey for you - ANOTHER PCM ONE BITES THE DUST!

A reminder of your first post back in 2018 and that this was PCM:

A couple of weeks ago on 28 July, the driver parked outside the block being moved into and was given the OK by concierge but only today received a Parking Charge - keeper liability, the first I knew of this. There was no windscreen ticket at the time. They parking charge States a breach of the contractual terms and conditions parked within a restricted area'. It is from PCM, an IPC member.

I have another 2 tickets re no permit bay parking, not reached LBC yet, am thinking of writing to PCM to ask them to cancel those in light of today's win, but will definitely fight those if i need to in future.

Include this wording if the location and facts are pretty much the same as the case today:

Cause of Action estoppel

PCM's solicitor will be aware that by detaching (or allowing to remain detached) elements of alleged debt - or series of alleged debts - and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.  Claim no xxxxxxxx was won at a hearing by me about this same car park/car and facts, on 18.5.2020 and it is your problem, not mine, that PCM failed to advance your whole case/parking charges with that claim, and that your claim was not upheld by the court. 

Any cause of action is now extinguished for any other similar fact parking charges against myself as the Defendant - in short, the cases that are at Letter before Claim or debt collection stage are effectively now barred.  Any further contact regarding other PCNs will be unwarranted harassment and I specifically now invoke my right to ask PCM's Data Protection Officer to cease processing my data and to erase it now.

The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same as another filed by the same claimant and should you subsequently file more claims, I will apply for the second action to be struck out, with my full costs being borne by PCM Ltd.

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.”

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''.

Special thanks to you as well, Coupon Mad, and thanks again to everyone for persevering all my questions. 

It's been a long wait to the judgement today, I think I was lucky to have the time I did to research and prepare everything thanks to this forum and you regulars. 

Thank you, I will use the above and write to my MP and the DVLA again. 

Given the serious matter re the false instrument of a contract, the judge did question it multiple times with the legal advocate, but of course, she wasn't able to answer in full. It's amazing that piece of evidence was included which they thought would be OK. 

Johnersh

Missaver said:

Good news all - I had my hearing today via Skype video, and at the end, it was dismissed, so I won!!
Thank you to all that have helped and advised greatly which led to my win, it is such a relief this ticket is all over now.  
The main points the Judge dismissed were due to the dodgy contract (he will now refer it to the Attorney General) and also that there were no signs on the road disallowing parking which the claimant say there are. 
I was awarded half my costs requested, but am happy with that.

I have another 2 tickets re no permit bay parking, not reached LBC yet, am thinking of writing to PCM to ask them to cancel those in light of today's win, but will definitely fight those if i need to in future.

Thanks again all for all your helpful input, as someone else said, you are heros!

We may have to wait and see (hopefully it will be actioned and is not a mere threat) but that is a referral to investigate a possible contempt of court.