We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
UKCPM County Court Claim HELP
Comments
-
I cannot give you legal advice but I believe that you should include it in each and every claim and ask for all 3 to be consolidated , keep asking at each and every stage until it's done , Same as this member is doing1
-
What do you mean I should include it in every claim of the what?Redx said:I cannot give you legal advice but I believe that you should include it in each and every claim and ask for all 3 to be consolidated , keep asking at each and every stage until it's done , Same as this member is doing
In that link, what do you expect me to look for?0 -
@Coupon-mad Can you please send me the link to the post that I could add to the defence with the wording about Arnold v Westminster and Henderson v Henderson??
I tried to search for Arnold v Westminster but I cant find it.
For Henderson vs Henderson, I found this:The facts - lack of prominently displayed contract and no agreement on the charge16. Should this poorly pleaded claim not be summarily struck out for any/all of the reasons stated above, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract was entered into with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. Therefore, as a matter of contract as well as consumer law, the Defendant cannot be held liable to the Claimant for any charge or damages arising from any alleged breach of the purported terms. Whilst there is a lack of evidence from the Claimant, the Defendant sets out this defence as clearly as possible in the circumstances, insofar as the facts below are known.17. The Claimant has issued a further claim, number XXXX, against the Defendant on an earlier 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.18. In regard to the Parking Enforcement memo issued by the Property Manager to Fort Dunlop Office Tenants: “Parking etiquette will be monitored within this zone, anybody parking in a way that will have a negative impact on other car park users will be issued a ticket.” In fact, the defendant’s car was parked primarily within the parking bay with both drivers side wheels parked on the lines of the parking bay, but not across parking bays and did not constitute a negative impact on other car park users. Further, the court is invited to note that the above communication was merely a residents’ update memo, not something that could fall under the POFA definitions of a ‘relevant contract’ or ‘relevant obligation’ and it fails to set out any boundaries or definitions and does not even mention any specific penalty charge (the word ’ticket’ does not communicate any sum of money at all)19. The claimant has failed to meet the keeper liability requirements as stated in POFA . Specifically they failed to comply with Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (2) (a) period of parking to which the notice relates and further, re 9 (2) (f) the mandatory warning of keeper liability not given in the prescribed format and the purported NTK in fact misstates the position and misleads a keeper regarding the period of time as set out in the Act.20. The landlord has failed to comply with Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Section 37 (5) by not carrying out a survey and questionnaire to obtain permission from tenants, before the the parking enforcement notice was imposed.21. The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Schedule 2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was agreed by the driver.
And also this:
The Claimant has issued a further claim, number XXXX, 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 , establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. 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.” The Court is invited to strike out the second claim due to cause of action estoppel - or in the alternative, consolidate the two claims to be determined together at one hearing - and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for filing two abusive and exaggerated claims.Do I need to add both of them in my defence??
And for abuse of process, I have found this:The Judge found that the claims - both trying to claim £160, with some ten or more similar cases stayed - represented an abuse of process that ‘tainted’ each claim. It was held to be not in the public interest for a court to let such claims proceed and merely disallow £60 in a case-by-case basis, thus restricting and reserving the proper application of the relevant consumer rights legislation only for those relatively few consumers who reach hearing stage. That Judgment is appended, Appendix C.
8. The CCBC and/or the allocated Court Judge is invited to read the Appendices at the earliest opportunity. The Defendant avers that parking firm claims which add a duplicitous ‘costs’ sum to the parking charge are now easily identified to be unlawful. Such claims are against the public interest, requiring no further assessment, and listing such cases for trial should be avoided. The Court is invited to exercise its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 to strike out this claim, which is entirely tainted by abuse of process and breaches of the CRA.
9. Should this claim continue, the Claimant will no doubt try to mislead the court by pointing to their Trade Association ‘ATA’ Code of Practice (‘CoP’) that now includes a hastily-added clause ‘allowing’ added costs/damages. The Defendant points out that the CoP is a self-serving document, written in the parking firms’ interests. Further, the ‘admin fee’ model was reportedly invented by a member of the British Parking Association Board, Gary Osner, whose previous firm, Roxburghe (UK) Limited, folded after being declared ‘unfit’ by the Office of Fair Trading who refused to renew their consumer credit licence due to ‘unfair and misleading’ business practices. Mr Osner states in an article that has been in the public domain since 2018: ‘’I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all.’’
Do I need to add them to my defence??0 -
I don't send links as I don't have the case or thread handy. I'd have to search the forum, same as you, and doing that for people never helps a newbie on this particular board, as they don't learn how to tweak searches to get good results and it doesn't help you in future when you need to find something.
Try a different word to search, a SINGLE word. There are several threads where people have used that wording over the years.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
@Coupon-mad I did a search using a SINGLE word when I search for "Arnold v Westminster" but it didn't come up what i'm exactly looking for.
However, I have found using this:
And also this:
The Claimant has issued a further claim, number XXXX, 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 , establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. 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.” The Court is invited to strike out the second claim due to cause of action estoppel - or in the alternative, consolidate the two claims to be determined together at one hearing - and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for filing two abusive and exaggerated claims.
It come up with Henderson -v- Henderson and Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc so do I have to use this for my defence??
As for abuse of process, do I need to add this to my defence??The Judge found that the claims - both trying to claim £160, with some ten or more similar cases stayed - represented an abuse of process that ‘tainted’ each claim. It was held to be not in the public interest for a court to let such claims proceed and merely disallow £60 in a case-by-case basis, thus restricting and reserving the proper application of the relevant consumer rights legislation only for those relatively few consumers who reach hearing stage. That Judgment is appended, Appendix C.
8. The CCBC and/or the allocated Court Judge is invited to read the Appendices at the earliest opportunity. The Defendant avers that parking firm claims which add a duplicitous ‘costs’ sum to the parking charge are now easily identified to be unlawful. Such claims are against the public interest, requiring no further assessment, and listing such cases for trial should be avoided. The Court is invited to exercise its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 to strike out this claim, which is entirely tainted by abuse of process and breaches of the CRA.
9. Should this claim continue, the Claimant will no doubt try to mislead the court by pointing to their Trade Association ‘ATA’ Code of Practice (‘CoP’) that now includes a hastily-added clause ‘allowing’ added costs/damages. The Defendant points out that the CoP is a self-serving document, written in the parking firms’ interests. Further, the ‘admin fee’ model was reportedly invented by a member of the British Parking Association Board, Gary Osner, whose previous firm, Roxburghe (UK) Limited, folded after being declared ‘unfit’ by the Office of Fair Trading who refused to renew their consumer credit licence due to ‘unfair and misleading’ business practices. Mr Osner states in an article that has been in the public domain since 2018: ‘’I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all.’’
0 -
Here is my update defence
The facts - lack of prominently displayed contract and no agreement on the charge
18. Should this poorly pleaded claim not be summarily struck out for any/all of the reasons stated above, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract was entered into with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. Therefore, as a matter of contract as well as consumer law, the Defendant cannot be held liable to the Claimant for any charge or damages arising from any alleged breach of the purported terms. Whilst there is a lack of evidence from the Claimant, the Defendant sets out this defence as clearly as possible in the circumstances, insofar as the facts below are known.
19. The Claimant has issued a further claim, number XXXX, 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 , establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. 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.” The Court is invited to strike out the second claim due to cause of action estoppel - or in the alternative, consolidate the two claims to be determined together at one hearing - and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for filing two abusive and exaggerated claims.
20. In regard to the Parking Enforcement memo issued by the Property Manager to Fort Dunlop Office Tenants: “Parking etiquette will be monitored within this zone, anybody parking in a way that will have a negative impact on other car park users will be issued a ticket.” In fact, the defendant’s car was parked primarily within the parking bay with both drivers side wheels parked on the lines of the parking bay, but not across parking bays and did not constitute a negative impact on other car park users. Further, the court is invited to note that the above communication was merely a residents’ update memo, not something that could fall under the POFA definitions of a ‘relevant contract’ or ‘relevant obligation’ and it fails to set out any boundaries or definitions and does not even mention any specific penalty charge (the word ’ticket’ does not communicate any sum of money at all) .
21. The claimant has failed to meet the keeper liability requirements as stated in POFA . Specifically they failed to comply with Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (2) (a) period of parking to which the notice relates and further, re 9 (2) (f) the mandatory warning of keeper liability not given in the prescribed format and the purported NTK in fact misstates the position and misleads a keeper regarding the period of time as set out in the Act.
22. The landlord has failed to comply with Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Section 37 (5) by not carrying out a survey and questionnaire to obtain permission from tenants, before the the parking enforcement notice was imposed.
23. The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Schedule 2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was agreed by the driver.
24. The Judge found that the claims - both trying to claim £160, with some ten or more similar cases stayed - represented an abuse of process that ‘tainted’ each claim. It was held to be not in the public interest for a court to let such claims proceed and merely disallow £60 in a case-by-case basis, thus restricting and reserving the proper application of the relevant consumer rights legislation only for those relatively few consumers who reach hearing stage. That Judgment is appended (Appendix C).25. The CCBC and/or the allocated Court Judge is invited to read the Appendices at the earliest opportunity. The Defendant avers that parking firm claims which add a duplicitous ‘costs’ sum to the parking charge are now easily identified to be unlawful. Such claims are against the public interest, requiring no further assessment, and listing such cases for trial should be avoided. The Court is invited to exercise its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 to strike out this claim, which is entirely tainted by abuse of process and breaches of the CRA.
26. Should this claim continue, the Claimant will no doubt try to mislead the court by pointing to their Trade Association ‘ATA’ Code of Practice (‘CoP’) that now includes a hastily-added clause 'allowing' added costs/damages. The Defendant points out that the CoP is a self-serving document, written in the parking firms’ interests. Further, the ‘admin fee’ model was reportedly invented by a member of the British Parking Association Board, Gary Osner, whose previous firm, Roxburghe (UK) Limited, folded after being declared ‘unfit’ by the Office of Fair Trading who refused to renew their consumer credit licence due to ‘unfair and misleading’ business practices. Mr Osner states in an article that has been in the public domain since 2018: ''I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all.''
Do I need to remove paragraph 20, 21, 22 and 23 but keep the rest of them??0 -
If each and every court claim is the same Parking company , same location , same circumstances , but say different parking dates , then the claimant should have issued ONE claim for ALL of them. , Not piecemeal , so you ask for them all to be consolidated by the court , for one hearing that includes each and every outstanding invoice. If you have 3 almost identical claims , you do it 3 times !chris0147 said:
What do you mean I should include it in every claim of the what?Redx said:I cannot give you legal advice but I believe that you should include it in each and every claim and ask for all 3 to be consolidated , keep asking at each and every stage until it's done , Same as this member is doing
In that link, what do you expect me to look for?
Think of it as the difference between buying one item at a time in a shop , paying after queuing at each time , boring and time wasting repetition , whereas you put all the items into one basket and queue and pay just the once. It could also save money , because they may have a buy 3 items get one free deal , or a discount for buying 3 similar items
I expect you to look for anything to assist your case , including any wording they may use , any arguments they use , any cases they use
It's your court case , so you do your own research and assemble your Defence and exhibits and witness statement etc
I am pointing you at one topic where someone else is doing something similar , make of their case whatever you wish , taking any nuggets for your own case
Others won't give you links , you are expected to do your own searching for these things , I noticed one discussion that MAY help you with your case , you do whatever you want with my advice or my opinion. We may give you numerous links , but what you do with them is up to you2 -
I have submitted my two defence to court through on email.
What is next??0 -
Go back to where and what list?KeithP said:
Go back to that list you were following when you filed your Defence.chris0147 said:I have submitted my two defence to court through on email.
What is next??
Item 6 on that list is...6. After filing your Defence, there is more to do.
Read item 7 and onwards.
Do I need to start witness statement??0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards