SAR request multiple claim legally binding?

Coupon-mad

That parking firm are better left alone.  If they file a claim themselves they are better at it than any robo-claim solicitor.  They will not be put off by a LBC so if it were me, I'd deal only with the hired goons.

Minotaur4

result 

Curlyben

Nice one....
Surprising how they run away once challenged....

Coupon-mad

Very unusual!
That was after the OP sent this, based upon my DCBLegal one posted on the last page:

Dear Sirs,

Account number – WL1161735  Client – Napier Parking Limited.

I refer to the letter of claim I received.

This claim is an exact duplicate of account number WL1180464 which I recently won in court due to poor signage, and that was just the first point your case failed on. The judge didn’t need to address the others. You also had your appeal laughed at and overturned. In fact, this case supports my evidence even more due to the fact it is completely dark rather than day light like in the first case.

No entrance or large font signs - any contract is denied
The signage is wholly inadequate and I have already covered this in my defence to the previous claim, which I won.

Cause of Action estoppel

BW Legal’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.  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 or your client subsequently file more than one claim, I will apply for the second action to be struck out, with my full costs being borne by your client.  

Your clients have already issued a claim to me (claim number WL1180464) so they are estopped from subjecting me to a 'drip, drip' form  of harassment with more claims based upon duplicate or similar facts that should have been brought to court in the first instance.

 

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''.

There has been no reasonable diligence exhibited in this case. Kindly explain the error or omission in your process that meant there are/were no checks and balances by BW Legal or your client (no human intervention at all) to interrogate the data of the cases being passed over and identify those which must form a single claim.

 

Harassment and notice of proposed £900 counter claim

Due to the nature, number and wording of the unrelenting and wholly misleading letters, which followed predatory PCNs issued at a site which is operated in breach of the IPC Code of Practice, the entire series of communications constitutes unwarranted harassment.  I dispute the quantum and object to the intimidatory, misleading nature of the entire operation.  

Your clients have no cause of action, and must stop. Kindly inform your clients that if a claim is filed, I will counterclaim and I will seek damages for distress and/or breach of statutory duty in the sum of £900, which is at the lower end of established guidance regarding harassment claims, pursuant to the following: 

a) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duty and misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”);  

b) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duty arising from breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA');

c) damages for distress caused by breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation ('the GDPR');

d) damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ('the PFHA') ref section 3.

 

Personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully.  Your clients stand in breach of Article 5 (1) of the GDPR (the requirement for lawfulness, fairness and transparency) and the doctrines of open dealing and good faith in the CRA.  There was no entrance sign, no clear unambiguous terms and no permit scheme or other 'relevant obligation' that related to myself.   Accordingly, the processing of my DVLA data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract”, since no such contract existed. I will be reporting your clients to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for the initial processing and for sharing and allowing my data to be misused by Napier parking limited and BW Legal to send various misleading communications.

 

By operating in a predatory fashion with inadequate signage, your clients had no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.  Your client had, and still has, no prospect of furthering their purpose and no legitimate cause to continue processing my data. 

In accordance with Principles 1,2 and 5 of the Data Protection Principles they were not permitted to either obtain, process or keep it.  The quantum of the alleged debt is in breach of Schedule 2 of the CRA and the misleading wording of this bombardment of demands from apparent 'bailiffs' pays no regard to the PAP, the FCA rules or the Regulations cited above in (a).  It is unfair business practice for a parking firm to state that they are a member, yet fail to comply with the applicable Code of Practice, which the Supreme Court took to be effectively 'regulatory'.  The conduct of your client and their agents (including your firm) has amounted to an unfair commercial practice which is prohibited under regulation 3 of the CPTURs and a misleading action within the meaning of regulations 5 and 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b).

 

In all the premises, the conduct of your clients and their agents amounts to harassment under section 1 of the PFHA.  It is pertinent to adduce the authorities of:

(i) Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd  [2009] EWCA Civ 46

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html 

where Sedley LJ held: 

[52] ''...For my part I would draw attention to the fact [...] that harassment is a crime as well as a tort. Contrary to what was more than once suggested, this does not modify in any way the constituents of the wrong. 

[53] Parliament's intention in passing the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was to criminalise the kind of serious and persistent unwarranted threat which is alleged here, giving a right of civil action as a fallback. In this situation it ought not to be left to hardy individuals to put their savings and homes at risk by suing. The primary responsibility should rest upon local public authorities which possess the means and the statutory powers to bring alleged harassers, however impersonal and powerful, before the local justices.''

 

and 

(ii) Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html 

where HHJ Chambers QC concluded at [83]:

''Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the Defendant went about recovering their debt. [...] It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt. Whatever the strength of the suggestion that the courts should only be a last resort, I can see no legitimate comparison between a series of measured warnings which, after full opportunity for response, lead to legal proceedings and what took place. {...there} ...can be no excuse for conduct of which it must be supposed the sole purpose must have been to make the Claimant's life so difficult that he would come to heel. I cannot think that in a society that is otherwise so sensitive of a consumer's position this is conduct that should countenanced.''

(iii) Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311 which confirms that pecuniary loss is not necessary for compensation to be payable and that pure distress is enough.

 

By reason of the matters aforesaid I have been obliged to deal with unjustified and aggressive correspondence from your clients and their agents which has relentlessly arrived at my family home for over a year and a half.  Throughout, the parking firm and their agents have duplicated each letter, doubling the distress, despite knowing that two 'exact match' (save from dates) cases are being exploited, with me as the single data subject.  As a Litigant in Person I have suffered substantial damage and distress, causing sleepless nights, headaches and extreme worry.  I consider myself a robust person but I am only human and will attest to the severe effect on my peace of mind, on oath if required by the Judge.  Your clients are the cause of enormous anxiety for me and my family, especially given the current pandemic situation where people are more vulnerable.

 

I was seriously upset by what has been painted as if it is a credible threat to my credit rating with a CCJ.  It is even more alarming that the letter of claim was timed by you or your client's deliberate actions, to arrive during the pandemic lockdown this year.  I am certain that most people would have succumbed to the crippling pressure you exert, and paid to avoid the stress.  If the bullying and misleading conduct aimed at me regarding these two PCNs is an example of what your clients and BW Legal do every day, then sanctions by the various authorities are long overdue.

 

 Your clients must take stock of their position and cease immediately.   I expect an apology at the very least but given the fact that your client has already chosen to file a claim, they are estopped from filing more of the same.  If your clients ignore this fair warning, I will file a £900 counterclaim this time, as well as a robust defence and will also pursue my entire costs to this case and the previous case pursuant to Part 27.14(2)(g) of the Civil Procedure Rules due to their wholly unreasonable conduct.

 

Yours faithfully, 

THIS (AND THE DCBLEGAL EXAMPLE I POSTED EARLIER IN THIS THREAD, WHICH ALSO WORKED) CAN BE USED AS A COUNTERCLAIM EXAMPLE AND AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW TO STOP A SECOND CLAIM, IF A PPC HAS ALREADY FILED ANOTHER CLAIM.

HamiltonThor

This was a great read - really good work. 

I may be in a similar situation, same company also, but with the case now at CC level as I didn't act on the prewarning. I am putting my defence together right now and stumbled across this.

Is it too late to use this response given that it is at CC stage?

Cheers!

Jenni_D

People often don't spot post dates and may try to respond to the original thread starter. I'd suggest you start your own new thread (perhaps linking back to this one) to ask any questions.