Defence against PPS (BW Legal) for 3 parking charges occurring over 5 years and three months ago!

Coupon-mad

Don't use an acronym RK that the Judge won't understand.  And don't use the word 'offences' because they certainly were not crimes!

alleged offences.

alleged parking events.

And I'd move this right up to be numbers 3 and 4:

3.  The Defendant places reliance on the doctrine of cause of action estoppel because a claim relating to the same facts and subject matter has already been pursued at the County Court at Torquay and Newton Abbot, Nicholson Road, TQ2 7AZ, Claim Number E7DP9T6Y where as the claim was dismissed at a hearing attended by both parties after all facts were heard about identical parking charges.  The only difference with this case, is the dates of the notices.  Every other fact and detail matches and this appears to be a case of the parking firm trying to get a different result by splitting up parking charges across more than one claim.  This legally-represented Claimant  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, wastes the time and money of both the court and the Defendant and represents an abuse of the civil litigation process.  The Claimant's conduct in inflicting a 'drip,.drip' form of harassment upon a litigant in person by using the small claims track as a cheap form of intimidating debt collection with a prolonged threat of several CCJs for what should have been one claim (already dismissed) is distressing, vexatious and wholly unreasonable conduct.

4.  There has been no reasonable diligence exhibited and this Claimant has failed to advance its whole case (all similar parking charges issued for the same reason, same time period, same location, same vehicle, same Defendant) at the time of Claim Number E7DP9T6Y.   The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same as another filed by the same claimant, and if the claim is not struck out by the court acting on its own volition, the Defendant will rely upon authorities including Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41, where 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.”  Also relevant is Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 where the court noted the following:

(a) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(b) 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;
(c) 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''.

...and get rid of this #3 and #4 (no need for it):

3)  It is admitted that parking charge notices were affixed to the RKs vehicle.
4)     It is further admitted that pre-action correspondence was entered into with the claimant regarding various parking charge notices ("the PCNs"), as specified in the particulars of claim.

 

And you don't need any of this because the template defence you are using, already covers all this:

Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Claimant is put to proof that any parking signs or contracts permit them to seek enhanced costs of £846.74 in total for the PCN’s
The interest calculations appear to be incorrectly applied and calculated notwithstanding the various dates of the PCNs and the later application of what appears to be a punitive sum of liquidated damages. 
Liability is denied. 
For the reasons set out above, the Defendant avers that the Claimant's claim is entirely without merit and has no reasonable prospects of success. 
The Defendant reserves the right to seek costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) if this litigation is further pursued where, in all the circumstances, it is unreasonable to do so. 

Alexirving

Coupon-mad said:

Don't use an acronym RK that the Judge won't understand.  And don't use the word 'offences' because they certainly were not crimes!

alleged offences.

alleged parking events.

And I'd move this right up to be numbers 3 and 4:

3.  The Defendant places reliance on the doctrine of cause of action estoppel because a claim relating to the same facts and subject matter has already been pursued at the County Court at Torquay and Newton Abbot, Nicholson Road, TQ2 7AZ, Claim Number E7DP9T6Y where as the claim was dismissed at a hearing attended by both parties after all facts were heard about identical parking charges.  The only difference with this case, is the dates of the notices.  Every other fact and detail matches and this appears to be a case of the parking firm trying to get a different result by splitting up parking charges across more than one claim.  This legally-represented Claimant  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, wastes the time and money of both the court and the Defendant and represents an abuse of the civil litigation process.  The Claimant's conduct in inflicting a 'drip,.drip' form of harassment upon a litigant in person by using the small claims track as a cheap form of intimidating debt collection with a prolonged threat of several CCJs for what should have been one claim (already dismissed) is distressing, vexatious and wholly unreasonable conduct.

4.  There has been no reasonable diligence exhibited and this Claimant has failed to advance its whole case (all similar parking charges issued for the same reason, same time period, same location, same vehicle, same Defendant) at the time of Claim Number E7DP9T6Y.   The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same as another filed by the same claimant, and if the claim is not struck out by the court acting on its own volition, the Defendant will rely upon authorities including Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41, where 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.”  Also relevant is Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 where the court noted the following:

(a) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(b) 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;
(c) 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''.

...and get rid of this #3 and #4 (no need for it):

3)  It is admitted that parking charge notices were affixed to the RKs vehicle.
4)     It is further admitted that pre-action correspondence was entered into with the claimant regarding various parking charge notices ("the PCNs"), as specified in the particulars of claim.

 

And you don't need any of this because the template defence you are using, already covers all this:

Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Claimant is put to proof that any parking signs or contracts permit them to seek enhanced costs of £846.74 in total for the PCN’s
The interest calculations appear to be incorrectly applied and calculated notwithstanding the various dates of the PCNs and the later application of what appears to be a punitive sum of liquidated damages. 
Liability is denied. 
For the reasons set out above, the Defendant avers that the Claimant's claim is entirely without merit and has no reasonable prospects of success. 
The Defendant reserves the right to seek costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) if this litigation is further pursued where, in all the circumstances, it is unreasonable to do so. 

Thankyou so much Coupon-Mad!! You are an absolute super star!!