2 UKPC Court Claims Received

Parker_Peters

I have received 2 claim forms from UK Parking Control Limited, both with the issue date 03/08/2022. I completed both AoS after day 5.

Each claim is for parking in a residential car park without a permit displayed, so 2 occasions where I received a ticket for this, both in the summer of 2017. I was a resident renting a property on the site at the time and my permit, a laminated square piece of paper with a basic logo and number on it, was apparently not on display. There was no commercial use of the carpark. My tenancy agreement has no mention of parking permits. I have a feeling my itinerary pack did, but I don't have a copy and I can't quite remember.

I appealed both tickets individually using the process set out on it, which I think was to fill out the appeal form on their website, thinking they would drop it because I was a resident. They offered me a reduced charge. I did not contact them any further after that. I received various offers to pay the charges, which would go up and down, followed by a string of debt collector letters.

I received the intention to start legal proceedings letter but thought it was another empty threat.

Interestingly one of the claim letters has the incorrect registration on it. Does that make any difference to my defence?

I am very grateful for the information and assistance provided here. However, I am a bit unsure of how to defend the claims. Should I use the standard defence, or one of the residential parking examples?

Many thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

Interestingly one of the claim letters has the incorrect registration on it. Does that make any difference to my defence?

You can say near the start of that defence, that you were never the registered keeper of the VRM stated in the Particulars and that this claim should be struck out because (a) it does not relate to any car the Defendant recognises and (b) if the Claimant intended this claim to relate to VRM xxxx xxx (which the Defendant is/was the keeper of) they should have included this parking charge in the duplicate claim (number xxxxxxx) filed on the same day.  Not split them and unfairly doubled the costs and litigation risk for the Defendant, who is faced with repeated litigation rather than one case.  The doctrines of either res judicata or cause of action estoppel should bar this claim from proceeding because to issue two claims on the same day about essentially the same facts and cause of action is abusive and duplicative.

See what @Johnersh (a solicitor posters here) makes of this, because the VRM being incorrect does seem to be more than just a typo to be ignored. I think it should be picked up in that defence.

I am very grateful for the information and assistance provided here. However, I am a bit unsure of how to defend the claims. Should I use the standard defence, or one of the residential parking examples?

Use the Template defence plus then add sections of the residential parking defences linked in the NEWBIES thread  as your facts.  It will need more than just a paragraph 3.  You will need to add a few paragraphs (then re-number the template once you are happy with it all) and also add a paragraph near the start, about cause of action estoppel and Henderson v Henderson (search the forum for a defence with that in).

If you want some light reading(!) this case goes into detail about the principle that the court should look to prevent abusive and duplicative litigation:https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2010-0013-judgment.pdf

Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Respondent) v Zodiac Seats UK Limited (formerly known as Contour Aerospace Limited) (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 46

Parker_Peters

Thank you very much for your assistance. I am putting my defence together now. 

Would you suggest I have a paragraph about cause of action estoppel and Henderson v Henderson in my defence for both claims?

Parker_Peters

Also, do you happen to know if I have inadvertently volunteered myself as the driver by following their appeal process, and therefore lost the ability to argue that in my defence?

KeithP

Parker_Peters said:

I have received 2 claim forms from UK Parking Control Limited, both with the issue date 03/08/2022. I completed both AoS after day 5.

With Claim Issue Dates of 3rd August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 5th September 2022 to file your Defence.

That's well over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

Parker_Peters said:

Also, do you happen to know if I have inadvertently volunteered myself as the driver by following their appeal process, and therefore lost the ability to argue that in my defence?

No idea, because we don't know what you put in your appeal.

Your SAR will show it if you didn't keep a copy.

Parker_Peters

Fair enough, I can't really remember what I put. Something along the lines of indicating that I was a resident and I provided a picture of my permit. I don't think I ever gave any indication that I was the driver. 

What I meant was, is anyone aware of any clause they have in their appeal process that states something along the lines of "by submitting this appeal you are admitting to being the driver of the parked vehicle". It was a long shot to be honest.

Parker_Peters

My defence so far for the claim with the incorrect VRM:

1. Paragraph 1 from template defence

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim as the Defendant has never been the registered keeper of a vehicle with the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) REG1 as stated in the Particulars. The Defendant also does not recognise this VRM as one belonging to a vehicle ever driven by the Defendant.

 

3.1. Should the Claimant have intended this claim to relate to VRM REG2, a vehicle for which the Defendant was the registered keeper at the time specified in the Particulars, the Parking Charges should have been included as part of Claim Number CLAIM1

 

3.2. In that case, 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. 

Under those circumstances the Claimant would have issued two claims relating to parking charges:

Claim number CLAIM1 - relates to a PCN issued on 12/07/2017;

Claim number CLAIM2 - relates to a PCN issued on the 12/06/2017, relying on the same facts.

 

3.4. 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.”

 

3.5. 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''.

3.6 Should both claims relate to the same VRM, the Claimant filing the first claim and failing to advance the whole case, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact Parking Charges against the Defendant. The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same.  The Defendant invites the court to dismiss the second 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.

 

4. Should the Claimant have intended this claim to relate to VRM REG2, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, however, the defendant is unable to recall who the driver was at the time and date specified in the Particulars. 

5. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a private vehicle, which is roadworthy and fully taxed,without limitation as to the ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

6. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7. Accordingly it is denied that:

7.1. There was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant

7.2. There was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and

7.3. The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

8. Paragraph 4 and onwards from the standard defence.

The defence for the claim with the correct VRM will be essentially the same without sections 2 and 3. so 1, 4-7 then 8 onwards.

Coupon-mad

It's a difficult one. See what @Johnersh thinks about the VRM typo in one set of particulars (2 claims).

Johnersh

The question, I guess, as to whether there is an error, is whether the particulars in respect of each vehicle actually may relate to distinct vehicles.

If so, it's quite possible in the absence of any particularity as to make/model/colour that the o/p has been sent someone else's claim form by means of clerical error.  Otherwise, why issue separate proceedings? Why assume they're both applicable to the o/p?  Isn't it just as possible that the cars are correct and the defendants are wrong? 

Set against that is what the pre-action correspondence addresses. That's why incomplete info is a risky basis upon which to make suggestions.

The o/p must decide what his/her best defence is. 

Johnersh

3.1. Should the Claimant have intended this claim to relate to VRM REG2, a vehicle for which the Defendant was the registered keeper at the time specified in the Particulars, the Parking Charges should have been included as part of Claim Number CLAIM1

Either run the point or don't. It seems to me that the above wording just reads like you know full well both claims are intended to be yours and probably operates to concede the point. You probably can't consolidate if you do take the point.

It's a judgment call. I know what I'd do if I were a DJ, but some DJs are more flexible with the requirements of the rules than I like to be.