2 X CCBC Claims from UKPC via DCB Legal

Coupon-mad

That's all very good for your case. 

Certainly a 'right' to park exists and nothing about paying anything for it over and above the Service Charge or Ground Rent, and nothing about any 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' (POFA 2012 phrases) to display a permit to claim the right you already had, only on worse and more onerous terms!

atothep

I've had a stab at my first draft for my defence. I'm not sure I've formatted it correctly so please advise if I should get rid of the Roman numerals etc. I've only shown the sections I've edited. I also plan to include the DLUHC's findings from the 7th of Feb. Can these just be plonked in anywhere else in the template and numbered accordingly?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3   i.   The Defendant rented a room from the legal leaseholder and was given express permission to use the car park. The Defendant was designated a permit and a key fob which was required to access the secure gated private car park. The fact the Defendant was able to access the car park using said key fob which therefore de facto authorised them to park there.

     ii.    On the date in question the Defendant’s vehicle was parked with the express permission of the leaseholder in a designated ‘visitor’ bay. The Defendant had displayed their permit (as shown in the claimant’s photo evidence) in the bottom left-hand side of their vehicle’s windscreen. It appears that the claimant chose to ignore this permit with the sole purpose of issuing a bogus fine.

     iii.    It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant by the occupier and leaseholder whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the visitor bay, without the requirement to display a parking permit nor does the lease specify a duration of time for which the visitor bay can be used

     iv.  The legal leaseholder recalls no clause in the lease which specifies that a 3rd party such as the Claimant can issue fines on the management company’s behalf. If such a clause exists, then the legal leaseholder chose not to implement this clause in their own rental contract between themselves and the Defendant. The Defendant does not accept that they entered into any form of contract with a 3rd party.

     v.   The Claimant has issued a further claim, number XXXX, against the Defendant with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The Defendant has requested that the Claimant combine these cases (as per Civil Procedure Rules) in writing on two occasions but has received no affirmative response. 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.

Thanks for any help/advice given...

Coupon-mad

That's great - good research to cover all of that.  The only error I can see is

de facto 

should be 

ipso facto

I also plan to include the DLUHC's findings from the 7th of Feb. Can these just be plonked in anywhere else in the template and numbered accordingly?

Use the new Template Defence as I have now included the new Code and other robust stuff to kill off claims.  Just plonk the template para 4 onwards under your draft and re-number.  Job done!

atothep

Coupon-mad said:

That's great - good research to cover all of that.  The only error I can see is

de facto 

should be 

ipso facto

I also plan to include the DLUHC's findings from the 7th of Feb. Can these just be plonked in anywhere else in the template and numbered accordingly?

Use the new Template Defence as I have now included the new Code and other robust stuff to kill off claims.  Just plonk the template para 4 onwards under your draft and re-number.  Job done!

The updated template is really useful. Thank you. Should I leave 3i, 3ii etc in or should I just refer to 3ii as 4 and bump up all the other numbers accordingly?

Coupon-mad

Simple numbering is best!

atothep

Coupon-mad said:

Simple numbering is best!

Excellent. Is there any advantage/disadvantage to just submitting the defence electronically (Do I simply just type my name in the signature section?) Or is it better to print, sign, scan and email back the old fashioned way?

KeithP

atothep said:

Coupon-mad said:

Simple numbering is best!

Excellent. Is there any advantage/disadvantage to just submitting the defence electronically (Do I simply just type my name in the signature section?) Or is it better to print, sign, scan and email back the old fashioned way?

There are several ways of getting a signature into a pdf. One way is described in the opening post on the template Defence thread.

However you do it, do not be tempted to file your Defence via the MCOL website.
File your Defence by email.

atothep

I received my expected 'intends to proceed' document from DCB. I still haven't received my N180 form so have downloaded instead. I'm following bargepole's recommended answers but the only section that is tripping me up is D3. I am planning on having my landlord supply a written statement. Therefore do I have to put down 2 witnesses? Or would that only be if they were attending in person? Many thanks.

Le_Kirk

The only reason they want to know the number of witnesses is so they can allocate a room sized for that number of attendants.  You are not a witness and only put 1 if the landlord is attending.

atothep

Le_Kirk said:

The only reason they want to know the number of witnesses is so they can allocate a room sized for that number of attendants.  You are not a witness and only put 1 if the landlord is attending.

Thanks for your reply. This seems contrary to bargepole's guide which suggest this:

• D3 = 1 witness (that’s you) (or more if you are going to get another person to provide a statement)