2x Identical DCB Legal County Court Claims

c_ran32

Hi, I've been issued two county court claims from DCB Legal for 2 identical incidents that happened within 2-3 weeks of each other. 

The situation is very simple. I parked in their car park in summer of 2021 and paid online for a ticket. However the location I payed for (Dantzic Street) was not the same location I parked (8 Dantzic Street). But I was not aware of this. I believed 8 Dantzic Street was the address and Dantzic Street was the name of the car park. So thats why I selected that as the location online.

I visited that location twice within the same month before I got my first parking ticket of £100. The second ticket shortly followed. Thats £200 in total for what was a simple mix up in the name selected on a drop down list. I emailed them to inform them, thinking it was a very simple situation to explain and get thrown out, but they rejected my email and maintained that I still had to pay the fine. At this point I was frustrated and allowed them to continue sending hounding letters to me, with the expectation that it would be taken to court.

Now that faithful day is here and I have been issued 2 separate court claims, each for a total value of £254.36 (£169.36 claim amount, £35 court fees, £50 legal representative costs). The issue date of the first was 13 May 2022, and the second was 17 May 2022. 

Ive seen a comment Coupon-mad made in another post about multiple court cases for identical situations and I wondered if this is something I can use and edit to suit my needs, and if so, do I send this to DCB Legal or to the courts? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77200964#Comment_77200964

c_ran32

Also, would it be advisable to send a SAR at this point?

Coupon-mad

Yes and yes.

The claimant isn't DCBLegal so who is it?

What's the 'date of issue' of both claims?

c_ran32

Thanks for the speedy response,

The claimant is Total Car parks limited. 

And apologies, I actually sent a SAR for these tickets on 7th Jan 2022, but I had no response. I will chase them now for a response.

Also, is that a 'yes' to me sending an amended version of your comment about multiple court claims to DCB Legal or do I send it to the court?

Coupon-mad

What's the 'date of issue' of both claims?

c_ran32

Oh that can be found in my initial post:

The issue date of the first was 13 May 2022, and the second was 17 May 2022. 

so within the last 10 days.

c_ran32

Please can someone review my draft defence. I will essentially be using this exact same defence for both claims. I have added the estoppel section suggested by Coupon-mad and amended it to suit myself. Any advice would be appreciated:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The outstanding parking charge to which the Claimant alleges the Defendant is liable was issued on ##/##/####, with the reference number of #########. This charge was sent under the claim that the defendant “Parked without a valid parking session”. However, the Defendant did in fact pay for parking via the Parkonomy website used by the Claimant. The Defendant paid for a location called “Dantzic Street” on the website, however it was brought to the Defendants attention, in an attempt to appeal, that they were in fact parked in a location called “8 Dantzic Street”. The discrepancy of one number resulted in a heft parking charge of £100 being sent to the Defendant.

4. This Claimant has issued two claims relating to parking charges that occurred 15 days apart:

       Claim number ######## - relates to a PCN issued on ##/##/#### (incident occurred on ##/##/####);

       Claim number ######## - relates to PCNs issued on ##/##/####, relying on the same facts  (incident occurred on ##/##/####);

5. 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. 

6. 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.”

7. 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''.

8. 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, 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.

9. 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/third claim where the cause of action is substantially the same.  I invite the court to vacate the second and third hearings 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.

10. 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 DCB Legal Ltd.  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. 

The rest of the defence is according to the updated template defence.

Is this adequate or do I require more detail?

I have until 15th and 19th of June to submit both defences respectively. 

Coupon-mad

You have 'I' and 'my' that you need to change to 'the Defendant'.

1505grandad

"I invite the court to vacate the second and third hearings and summarily dismiss those claims under the grounds of cause of action estoppel."

Is the above correct?

c_ran32

Thank you both. I missed those but have changed them now. 

The template for the estoppel section mentions seeking my full costs from the claimant. However, apologies for my ignorance, what kind of costs would I be looking to include?  And does this require me submitting a counter claim.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

No it doesn't mean a counterclaim.

The argument re costs is shown at the end of the Template Defence wording and in any recent WS example, such as the one by @ricky_balboa