Updated 08/03 - I won my case!

RoseNarene

Umkomaas said:

Savills are the most helpful of managing agents we come across in the context of private parking. Do a parking forum search on 'Savills' and find the name of the individual people have contacted - with success - previously.

Thanks - I had a look but the only email addresses I found were with regard to retail parks far, far away. When I get a chance to go out that way, I will get the phone number if I don't get a response to my generic email!

RoseNarene

Hiya, I have had my data request info back.

On all 3 occasions, I received 3 letters - a charge notice, a reminder, and a 'legal action pending' letter. All of the letters are exactly the same, except the little titles I mentioned, and the dates the letters were issued. All of them came within about 6 weeks after the incidents, which means the latest letter I received was in August 2019.

On two occasions, I overstayed by 20 minutes. Easily done when you have children and so many shops to get round, with queues and all sorts! There's no other traffic in any of the images, just me, so I'm not sure if this invalidates anything I say about congestion.

On the third stay, I was there for 4 hours, which is an hour an a half over the time allowed. Honestly, I have no idea how this happened. I worked on the retail park as a teenager, and I knew about the time limits because I worked on customer services in one of the shops, and we would regularly get people in complaining about tickets. So I have no idea how, armed with that knowledge, I overstayed for so long. I have young children, so it's possible I had some sort of emergency that I can't remember since it was 4 years ago. Is it possible that I could have been caught on separate visits on the same day? Is this the double dip thing? It may make sense, since the car park is divided into 2 parts (A & B ) with separate cameras, and the longer stay was caught on car park B, whereas the others were car park A.

EDIT: I just checked the addresses, and the letters regarding the long stay were sent in my married name, and ALL sent to my old address, so I never got any of them! My ex husband still lives there, and he would have got them all, but since we are not on good terms, he never told me. These were also the letters that were sent the earliest (Feb 2018). I moved back in with my mum in June 2017, but due to domestic abuse issues, I didn't get hold of my logbook for a while after that, so I couldn't change the address straight away - I remember it specifically because I was driving around with no tax for ages without realising, because he was deliberately keeping my stuff from me, so I never got any of the car tax reminder letters. It was a really, really horrible time.

I did manage to change my logbook to my mum's address eventually. The other letters were all sent to my mum's address, some of them before I moved into my own house, and some of them afterwards (I moved into my current address in Nov 2018). The only forms that have arrived for me at my current address are the court claim forms.

So the dates and address are, to sum up (if this helps...)

Overstay 1 (Feb 18)
Letters sent to my ex's, when I was living at my mum's

Overstay 2 (Sep 18)
Letters sent to my mum's, when I was living at my mum's

Overstay 3 (June 19)
Letters sent to my mum's, when I had moved into my own place.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

It sounds like a possible double visit, a double dip ANPR error:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5550336/double-dip-parking-list-of-cases/p1

I'd be saying:

The Defendant has seen no actual evidence of continuous parking time and has no idea about any breach, which is denied.  The Defendant shops at the location but has never knowingly overstayed, so it is suggested that this instance is more likely to be a typical ANPR error known as a 'double dip' (a phrase even used by Government in the new Code of Practice linked in this defence).  This is known in the industry as an inherent and well-documented likely flaw of ANPR, which cannot be relied upon to sign off a PCN without human checks.  AOS members are required to carry out manual checks to discount the possibility of 'orphan images' in the middle, denoting two visits within 24 hours, wrongly read as one period of parking (for example to return something, or to buy a forgotten item).  Given that ANPR defaults to 'first in, last out' images, the Claimant is put to strict proof of all ANPR captures of the vehicle onsite that day and of their documented human checks before this PCN was issued.

I gave you the above advice at first but is this claim about all three PCNs, or just one?

It's a long thread and we can't remember all the details of each case, and rarely have time to look back much.

RoseNarene

They sent me two claim forms - one is for the 2 breaches where I overstayed by about 20 minutes both times, and the second is the 1.5 hour overstay that was sent in the wrong name (my married name). 

You're right, you did - I reckon that is exactly what happened.

RoseNarene

@Coupon-mad, can I please ask where I put the information about the estoppel (in case you've forgotten - I know you have lots of cases to help with! - I was sent 2 claims for 3 parking 'fines', with 1 claim in my married name and the other in my maiden name). Does it go in my defence statement, or am I meant to email that to the solicitor?

This is what I have written for the defence so far, obviously with all the other paragraphs copied from the Newbies thread. Is it ok?
Should I add that I never received the letters as they went to the wrong address?

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or to form contracts in their own name at the location.

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. The Defendant does not know if she was the driver at the time of the alleged infractions. (it's very unlikely that anyone else was driving, though other people have driven my car before (such as my mum and my ex-boyfriend) so should I admit it was me, or just avoid the question unless I'm directly asked?)

3. The Defendant has seen no actual evidence of continuous parking time and has no idea about any breach, which is denied.  The Defendant shops at the location but has never knowingly overstayed, so it is suggested that this instance is more likely to be a typical ANPR error known as a 'double dip' (a phrase even used by Government in the new Code of Practice linked in this defence).  This is known in the industry as an inherent and well-documented likely flaw of ANPR, which cannot be relied upon to sign off a PCN without human checks.  AOS members are required to carry out manual checks to discount the possibility of 'orphan images' in the middle, denoting two visits within 24 hours, wrongly read as one period of parking (for example to return something, or to buy a forgotten item).  Given that ANPR defaults to 'first in, last out' images, the Claimant is put to strict proof of all ANPR captures of the vehicle onsite that day and of their documented human checks before this PCN was issued.

3. The Defendant is unable to recall the details that led to the alleged infractions that resulted in ‘parking charges’ being issued as the dates in question are all unremarkable days from 3-4 years ago. However, there are several reasons why an infraction may have occurred. First, that Riverside Retail Park is often heavily congested due to its layout and the number of shops the car park services, leading to delays in getting parked and exiting in a timely manner; second, that the Defendant is a single mother of 2 young children, one of whom was an infant at the time of the alleged infractions, and the other who has had issues controlling her bladder (for which she has been referred to the hospital), so it is very possible that exit from the car park was delayed because of a child-related issue or emergency; third, that there may have been delays in the shops due to queues.

Coupon-mad

What about the fact there are two car parks with two camera systems and it's possible to park in car park A for some shops then drive and re-park in car park B which the driver (whether the Defendant or not) may have done to avoid too much walking.

Send an email about cause of action estoppel/Henderson v Henderson to the solicitor, telling them about the maiden name issue and that they and their client are causing extra costs and wasting the court's time to expect two hearings.

Also add it as point #2 in your defence and move all the rest down a number.

RoseNarene

Thank you! Is this what I put for point 2? (I've taken out names and codes and specific dates).
I used what I found that you had written for someone else, I just took the bit about getting costs back as I don't have any costs.

I have also emailed the solicitor.

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 from:
Claim number _______ - relates to PCNs issued on __/09/2018 and __/06/2019
Claim number _______ - relates to a PCN issued on __/02/2018, relying on the same facts.

Claim ________ was sent in the Defendant’s current (maiden) name of _____ _____.
Claim ________ was sent in the Defendant’s married name of _____ _____.
All letters before the claim were sent to addresses where the Defendant was not living at that time, so she never received any letters until the Claim Forms dated __/03/2022 and __/03/2022.  

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 have had to make preparations for two separate court hearings, 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 those claims 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.

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 DCB Legal.  The conduct of this Claimant and their legal representatives has been vexatious and when their course of conduct is taken as a whole, it certainly meets the bar set in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 for the court to order the Claimant to pay my full costs.  

Coupon-mad

Yes!  Nailed it but all paragraphs need a number.

RoseNarene

Great! Thanks! I have numbered all the paragraphs and the defence(s) are ready to go.

RoseNarene

Hey again everyone! After submitting my defence, I have had a letter to say that they intend to proceed with the claim, and encouraging me to call them within 7 days to "discuss settlement". I'm tempted to call and offer them a penny. Don't worry - I won't   They also enclose their own directions questionnaire. 
Is this a usual thing they do? Is there still a chance they might drop the whole thing? As a court date may loom, I'm annoyed at having to take time out of work to attend a hearing, even if at home. I'm self-employed, a single mum and on UC and just cannot be doing with stupid things like this.