Gladstone PCN's - Multiple Court Hearings allowed or not?

nicepark

Hello everyone,
Can I please ask somebody knowledgeable the legality on Gladstones raising multiple court hearings for private parking PCN's?
If we say I was private PCN'd on.... Mon, Tue, Wed, Thur, Fri, (same calendar week)
Is it legal for Gladstones to take me to court in this following fashion?
Claim 1) Mon,Tue, Wed,
Claim 2) Thursday
Claim 3) Friday
I have all the court hearings lined up for next month. All ready to attend.
Is this behaviour allowed? The PCN's are all from the exact same week. The reason they are doing this is to inflict as much financial pain on me, right?
I think this is utterly abusive and disgraceful and I'm sure there is something about a general unwritten rule about always mitigating ones court costs?
They are doing this to claim loads of repeat fees or perhaps cost me those extra court fees if I lose... I responded with a good defence... 98% sure I will win...!!!
Please can somebody advise whether this is tolerable/acceptable or if I can contest this tactic as a form of abuse? If so, what precisely can I say about it?

Thank you so much
Nicepark.
 

Johnersh

Search for the word "consolidate" on the forum. Read. Then do that. 

D_P_Dance

Is this residential, if so, read this,

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.htmlantsot

What does your lease/AST say about parking? Does it mention the need to display a permit? then it may take primacy over the self serving TnC of the scammer, and interfere with your lawful right to “quiet enjoyment” of your property, possible an offence under The Landlord and Ten Acts.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/of these Private Parking Companies.

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

bargepole

This is what you should send to the Court (edit as necessary):

The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued a further claim, number XXXXXXXX, against the Defendant on the same date, and with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of two separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, and more recent authorities, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. The Court is invited to consolidate the two claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

Le_Kirk

bargepole said:

The Court is invited to consolidate the two claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

Shouldn't that be three claims?

Fruitcake

Le_Kirk said:

bargepole said:

The Court is invited to consolidate the two claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

Shouldn't that be three claims?

I suspect the comments in brackets of the first line of bargepole's post covers that.

Half_way

you've said you have been issued court claims, but why did the vehicle get the parking tickets in the first place?
is this a residential site?

Coupon-mad

I tend to use this argument (below) now. 

Have you already put in your own WS and evidence or not?

I got a Defendant to throw this at the lovely DCBLegal the other day (I've tweaked it to suit your case):

Cause of Action estoppel

Being legally represented, the Claimant knows, or should know, that by detaching or allowing to remain detached, elements of alleged debts and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. 

This Claimant has issued three claims relating to parking charges from the same calendar week:
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to PCNs issued on Mon,Tue, Wed;
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to a PCN issued on the Thursday, relying on the same facts;
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to a PCN issued on the Friday, relying on the same facts.

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''.

By the Claimant's negligence or by intent, filing or threatening multiple claims, potentially allowing them to continue to be listed by the courts for separate hearings and then blithely and routinely discontinuing, when each case nears hearing stage and the consumer victim has not 'come to heel' permits of no reasonable explanation.

The Courts and myself will have had to make preparations for separate court hearings, causing unnecessary cost in time and money, and specifically in terms of duplicating the paperwork, intimidation and distress for me as a Litigant in Person.

By filing the first claim and failing to advance their whole case at that time, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact parking charges against myself as Defendant.  The courts may estop a second/third claim where the cause of action is substantially the same.

If you persist, I will invite the court to vacate any subsequently-listed hearings. summarily dismiss the later claims under the grounds of 'cause of action estoppel' and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

I will be seeking my full costs from the Claimant, whose conduct in the pre- and post-action phases has been wholly unreasonable.   Ignorance of the existence of cause of action estoppel is no excuse.  My research discovered the above authorities and I am just a LiP forced to spend hours trying to get up to speed with a process I have never experienced before.  By contrast, this is a Claimant and 'legal' firm who are well used to the court process.  The conduct of this Claimant and their legal representatives has been vexatious and when their course of conduct is taken as a whole, it certainly meets the bar set in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 which I believe will pave the way for the court to order the Claimant to pay my full costs.  

The message for your client is to cease and desist, and if they fail to understand, may I refer them  and you. to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

Yours faithfully,

Johnersh

I'd just use the argument that it's a bl**d'y waste of time and the only reason that C has done that is to avoid the threshold increases on the court issue fee. Even on cpr1 costs and resources this begs to be rolled into a single hearing.