Worried and need some guidance...

Coupon-mad

Le_Kirk said:

That is a LOC so wait for the N1 form and proceed from there.

I wouldn't.

I would head it off.

This has been discussed before on other threads which the OP will find by searching the forum for Dear Sirs Henderson estoppel.

cameron93

Coupon-mad said:

Le_Kirk said:

That is a LOC so wait for the N1 form and proceed from there.

I wouldn't.

I would head it off.

This has been discussed before on other threads which the OP will find by searching the forum for Dear Sirs Henderson estoppel.

Hello again, are you suggesting that I email them ASAP referencing Henderson estoppel as seen in other threads?

Thank you

cameron93

I've drafted the following, does it look reasonable?

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Letter of Claim XXXX relating to an alleged breach of contract with the vehicle ‘XXXX’ at the location of XXXX.

The vehicle, location, Claimant and reason for the alleged breach of contract are identical to a claim that was recently dismissed; you should be aware that claim XXXX was heard and dismissed on 17-05-2022, your own reference is XXXX

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 two claims relating to parking charges for same carpark and parking incidents:

XXXX (dismissed) relates to the following PCNs:

                        PCN XX issued on 6th May 2019
                        PCN XX issued on the 16th January 2019.

XXXX - relates to the following PCN:

                        PCN XX issued on the 26th November 2017

The Claimant chose not to consolidate any other previous debt on to claim XXXX, which was dismissed.    In fact, the Claimant had known of the PCN XX for which they are now pursuing 45 months prior to their initial concluded claim against me.

 
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 two claims, allowing them to continue to two separate hearings and choosing not to pay the appropriate court fee to apply for leave to consolidate them and amend the particulars into one claim, permits of no reasonable explanation.   The Court and myself will have to make preparations for another separate court hearing in coming months, 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, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact parking charges against myself as Defendant.   The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same.  I invite the court to vacate the second hearing and summarily dismiss that claim under the grounds of cause of action estoppel.

I will attend the first hearing and will seek 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.  But this is a Claimant well used to the court process, able to rely upon advice from yourselves as appointed solicitors.

Yours Faithfully

Coupon-mad

Perfect research! That is the one. It's worked for me before.

As your case will now go quiet, please don't forget to come back here and do the Public Consultation. Your opinion needs to be heard.

It's horrible being pursued for £100 for no reason, by an ex-clamper aggressive firm, isn't it?

If you are not likely to pop back here every week to check, please set up email alerts for this forum and bookmark this thread (below) as we intend that one of us posts on it when the Government opens the Consultation:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333989/mse-parking-ticket-appeals-guide-feedback#latest

We need to stop the rotten industry from blocking and riding roughshod over the new statutory Code and the charge levels and basically bullying all motorists by using the Government for leverage.