Please Help - 3 County Court Claims covering 11 Parking Control Management resi parking tickets

Le_Kirk

nicestrawb said:

I'm fairly sure that they should be combining all claims into one, but someone else will know better...

The below was originally posted by @Coupon-mad

The rule in Henderson v Henderson is a shorthand for the legal proposition that a party is expected, indeed required, to present their entire case during the course of legal proceedings. The act of raising a line of argument in subsequent proceedings which could and should have been raised in the earlier proceedings constitutes an abuse of process and leaves the subsequent proceedings vulnerable to a strike-out application. 

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.

One of Coupon_Mad's posts about this is at : -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77776515/#Comment_77776515

Johnersh

In court terms, may is just around the corner. I'd concentrate on defending that. 

In relation to the two claims newly issued, the court can merge them (consolidation) or hear them together. If it were me, i'd request that those be dealt with together, basically because that's a letter and a decision for the court. It doesn't require representations. I say that not least because it is a waste of court resources (cpr1) to list multiple hearings on similar fact cases. Even if the cases are heard together, the claimant will need to pay a hearing fee for both as they are distinct claims. 

You will have to file separate defences for each, before requesting this. A defence should always respond to the case put in my view, it is not for a defendant to imagine or interpret what the claimants case should have been. The whole purpose of pre-action correspondence is that the parties may come to a resolution or refine their case before starting a claim.

If C pursues a claim for a date when D and his significant other were on a beach/another city etc, well that's a defence right there. 

fazzyp1000

Johnersh said:

In court terms, may is just around the corner. I'd concentrate on defending that. 

In relation to the two claims newly issued, the court can merge them (consolidation) or hear them together. If it were me, i'd request that those be dealt with together, basically because that's a letter and a decision for the court. It doesn't require representations. I say that not least because it is a waste of court resources (cpr1) to list multiple hearings on similar fact cases. Even if the cases are heard together, the claimant will need to pay a hearing fee for both as they are distinct claims. 

You will have to file separate defences for each, before requesting this. A defence should always respond to the case put in my view, it is not for a defendant to imagine or interpret what the claimants case should have been. The whole purpose of pre-action correspondence is that the parties may come to a resolution or refine their case before starting a claim.

If C pursues a claim for a date when D and his significant other were on a beach/another city etc, well that's a defence right there. 

Thanks. I understand your rationale for combining however I'm a bit scared of the risk of it being a "one shot" chance for me to defend it and I lose. The 3 claims total ~ 11 PCNs so I'd have a big problem if I lost one mega claim. Whereas if spread over 3 court claims, at least I'm spreading my risk (and I can also utilise the Henderson defence).

What do you think?

Johnersh

This is about what is easier for you. Its worth mulling over carefully. 

I can see merit in your point, especially if you intend to deal with the precise facts on each day in your evidence. 90 mins to deal with 33 PCNs would-be inadequate.

Might be worth changing your thread title because your exposure on this is very significant. 

Do bear in mind that if you did go down on them all, that is also to risk more costs/hearing fees. Although you might also have saved yourself the additional £60 plus interest on each PCN... 

Also if you lost the first one, the claimant would try to use it as a persuasive factor in leveraging a settlement from you or in the subsequent claims. (the opposite is also true, of course). 

fazzyp1000

Johnersh said:

This is about what is easier for you. Its worth mulling over carefully. 

I can see merit in your point, especially if you intend to deal with the precise facts on each day in your evidence. 90 mins to deal with 33 PCNs would-be inadequate.

Might be worth changing your thread title because your exposure on this is very significant. 

Do bear in mind that if you did go down on them all, that is also to risk more costs/hearing fees. Although you might also have saved yourself the additional £60 plus interest on each PCN... 

Also if you lost the first one, the claimant would try to use it as a persuasive factor in leveraging a settlement from you or in the subsequent claims. (the opposite is also true, of course). 

Thank you. 

Sorry my wording wasn't clear. I have received 3 court claims from them, which comprise of 4 PCNs, 3 PCNs and 3 PCNs, so 11 PCNs in total across the 3 claims.
(There are also a further 8 PCNs that I have received from them, that they have not yet hit me with Court Claims for). So my total potential is exposure is 19.

I think I will err on the side of caution and not lobby too hard to consolidate the claims. I will utilise the Henderson defence but I will omit the sentence "The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.".

Coupon-mad

But win or lose the first one, you can still cite Henderson v Henderson against any further cases to encourage them to stop wasting court time.

I can see the merit in not mentioning the first claim in the defences for these two.

Up to you if you ask for them to be consolidated or not.  @Johnersh is a solicitor with rare knowledge of parking claims, so his opinion is worth re-reading.

fazzyp1000

Thank you for the advice, I really appreciate the expert support and advice that you offer on here!

I am just finalising my further 2 defences.

I have one question if you don't mind. For 3 of the PCNs included in the 3rd claim, I was parked within my Uncle's allocated bay that he owns the lease for, within the secure car park. I had permission from my Uncle to utilise this bay, as he did not have a car at the time. I allegedly did not have the corresponding permit on display (that is not entirely clear from the photos, but even if it wasn't on display, it was simply because it slipped down the dashboard as it did on occasion).

I have tried searching the forum for similar cases. I can find arguments based on the lease when someone parked in their own allocated bay. However I didn't think these arguments were relevant in my case, given that it was my Uncle's bay. Do you have any suggestions for the best line of defence in my particular case?

Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

I would explain in the defence that the D had express permission from the leaseholder, on those occasions, to park in that bay and that his lease grants (what? 'Exclusive use' of that bay).  And the leaseholder will provide a witness statement and his lease and will confirm that he never agreed to any parking firm running a business in his exclusive bay, riding roughshod over his rights.

fazzyp1000

Coupon-mad said:

I would explain in the defence that the D had express permission from the leaseholder, on those occasions, to park in that bay and that his lease grants (what? 'Exclusive use' of that bay).  And the leaseholder will provide a witness statement and his lease and will confirm that he never agreed to any parking firm running a business in his exclusive bay, riding roughshod over his rights.

Thank you, I will add that in.

Yes that's exactly right, the lease says "The tenant will have the exclusive use of Parking Space No xx....for the purpose of parking a roadworthy private vehicle....and subject always to any appropriate Estate Regulations". Estate Regulations don't appear to have been defined anywhere in the lease document. 

Coupon-mad

There is an exact match persuasive appeal case from the Leeds area, UKPC v McCarthy, where HHJ Saffman held that 'exclusive use' of a parking bay means what it says and certainly in the absence of any variation of the lease, the resident had primacy of contract and could not have their rights removed or charges made for parking in the bay they were granted.

There is no transcript but a discussion thread by @Lamilad from a couple of years ago gives the case number and date of decision.