Gladstones taking me to court for UK CPM

Yettym

Coupon-mad said:

Are you suggesting i respond to this via the letter they post or the online form. 

Neither.

Do the SAR by email to their DPO, as the Newbies Thread explains.

Do the reply to the solicitor by email too, or by their portal.

Again, it looks like you haven't read the NEWBIES thread 2nd post which tells you about doing a SAR and replying to a LBC.

I've told you how to find the extra words about Henderson v Henderson.  

Thank you -@Coupon-mad
I have sent the email again  to DPO as advised.

Here is the draft of the email I want to send to Gladstones. As the case is not in court yet do I need to say all this in the email?

Dear sir/ma 

I received your LBC  dated XXXX to my correspondence highlighting abuse of process associated with claim ref xxxx. After further reviewing I would like to also highlight that in addition claim xxx is Cause of Action estoppel.

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 within one month.
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to PCN xxx issued on 24th September 2019.
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to a PCN xxx issued on the 22nd October 2019, relying on the same facts.

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 two separate court hearings 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.  In the alternative, the Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

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

'Dear Sirs' is the accepted salutation.

Go through it and change things like this that aren't true, and don't call the PPC 'the Claimant' because there's no claim yet, is there?

This Claimant has issued two claims 

Yettym

Coupon-mad said:

'Dear Sirs' is the accepted salutation.

Go through it and change things like this that aren't true, and don't call the PPC 'the Claimant' because there's no claim yet, is there?

This Claimant has issued two claims 

Got it , thanks,
The first paragraph, where can i insert the claim no that is currently in court?

Yettym

Please have a look 

Dear sirs,

I received your LBC  dated XXXX to my correspondence highlighting abuse of process associated with claim ref xxxx. After further reviewing I would like to also highlight that in addition claim xxx is Cause of Action estoppel.

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.  

Your client UKCPM  has issued two claims relating to parking charges for same carpark and parking incidents.
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to PCN xxx issued on 24th September 2019.
Claim number xxxxxxx - relates to a PCN xxx issued on the 22nd October 2019, relying on the same facts.

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 your client’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 two separate court hearings if this claim go to court 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 your whole case, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact parking charges against myself.  The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same. 

Should this claim go to court, I will attend the first hearing and will seek my full costs from your client 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 your client is bmwell used to the court process, able to rely upon advice from yourselves as appointed solicitors.

Yours Faithfully

Coupon-mad

I'm confused!

You talk about two claim numbers but the second one (the letter you are replying to)is only at LBC stage and doesn't have a claim number yet.

Do you mean you currently have two live claims and this LBC is potentially about a third?

This is not a grammatical sentence:

 After further reviewing I would like to also highlight that in addition claim xxx is Cause of Action estoppel.

Yettym

Coupon-mad said:

I'm confused!

You talk about two claim numbers but the second one (the letter you are replying to)is only at LBC stage and doesn't have a claim number yet.

Do you mean you currently have two live claims and this LBC is potentially about a third?

This is not a grammatical sentence:

 After further reviewing I would like to also highlight that in addition claim xxx is Cause of Action estoppel.

no, I only have one claim in court, now I think all I have to say in the first paragraph is this 

Dear sirs,

I received your LBC  dated XXXX to my correspondence highlighting abuse of process associated with claim ref xxxx which is currently in county court. Filing another claim which is similar or associated to the current claim is Cause of action estoppel.

what do you think ? @Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad

Still not right.  Needs a verb:

"Filing another claim which is similar to and mirrors the facts in a current claim is an abuse of the court process, being debarred under the doctrine of Cause of action estoppel."

But the rest is still wrong as you are listing this as if it has a claim number, which it doesn't.  And you've called their client 'Claimant' which they aren't yet.

Yettym

@Coupon-mad , please have a look 

Dear sirs,

I received your LBC  dated XXXX to my correspondence highlighting abuse of process associated with claim ref xxxx. Filing another claim which is similar to and mirrors the facts in a current claim is an abuse of the court process, being debarred under the doctrine of Cause of action estoppel."

As a solicitor, 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.  

Your client UKCPM  has issued a claim xxxxx relating to parking charges for same car park and parking incidents which is currently in county court, issuing a LBC that can lead to  a new claim will rely on same evidence and will be a waste of time.

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 your client’s negligence or by intent, filing another  claim, 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 two separate court hearings if this claim go to court 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 your whole case, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact parking charges against myself.  The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same. 

Should this claim go to court, I will attend the first hearing and will seek my full costs from your client 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 your client is well used to the court process, able to rely upon advice from yourselves as appointed solicitors.

Yours Faithfully

Coupon-mad

Looks fine except for the speech-marks you've left after the sentence I gave you.

Yettym

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine except for the speech-marks you've left after the sentence I gave you.

Thanks @Coupon-mad , I am very grateful.
 

I sent SAR TO UKCPM 2 days ago, they did not send any acknowledgment email, same thing they did last September . How can I chase this up?  I sent it to dpo@uk-carparkmanagement.co.uk and copied  dpo@uk-cpm.com

After responding to the LBC as advised above,  do I still need to send another  email to them asking them to put the LBC (incase they proceed) on hold for 30 days as advised on the newbies thread  ?