Double Court Claim for residently Parking ( own space ) vs Moorside Legal

MThomas95

I should also mention that these two sets of parking tickets are two separate claims.

Coupon-mad

MThomas95 said:

Unfortunately I am now facing the same situation for four more parking tickets in the same location. Two for my car in my space & two for my partners car where I was the driver & am also a named driver. PCM Ltd is still the enforcement company, but they are using a new solicitor called Moorside Legal. 

I'm pretty confident on the same process for the tickets against my vehicle, but I'm unsure about the two for my partners.

But not actually at court claim stage yet? Both at LBC stage?

You and your partner should (separate emails) robustly reply to Moorside, not using any template but telling them this:

You will Counterclaim for not less than £300 for harassment and data abuse because PCNs at this location have already been determined by Peterborough Court in May 2025 to be unrecoverable, due to the unequivocal rights that were enjoyed by the tenants that the parking company could not overrule. The claim number was xxxxx and their client will be well aware of this fact.

Recent landmark case law also cements the rights and interests of residents and this was ratified by the Supreme Court, who refused to allow an appeal. On Friday 8 December 2023 the Court of Appeal (King LJ, Asplin LJ, Birss LJ) handed down judgment in the second appeal in Duchess of Bedford House RTM Company Ltd & ors v Campden Hill Gate Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 1470.

Key Points

The decision is important in confirming that, as previously decided in the unreported decision in Newman v Jones, a right to park appurtenant to the whole of a block of flats exercisable by all of the occupiers of the flats and their visitors can arise under s.62(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 where there has been a prior settled practice of parking by occupiers. 

I will rely on this binding authority as well as others in support of my defence and counterclaim.

I suggest you must revert to your clients immediately, wind your necks in and move onto your thousands of weaker victims of the parking industry plague.

YOUR EMAIL CAN ALSO ADD THIS (your partner's can't):

Moreover, your client had their chance with that first claim and should have brought all matters relating to outstanding parking charges at the time of filing that claim.

Being legally represented, the prospective Claimant (your client) 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 multiple LBCs and indeed, claims relating to parking charges with mirrored facts and has already lost before a judge, so the trite law doctrine of res judicata applies.

In case your law degree or understanding of this area of law is a bit rusty:

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 or threatening multiple claims, potentially allowing them to continue to be listed by the courts for separate hearings and then blithely and routinely discontinuing case by case, when each one nears hearing stage and the consumer victim has not 'come to heel' permits of no reasonable explanation.

The Courts and myself will have had to make preparations for 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 at that time, 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.

If you persist, I will invite the court to vacate any subsequently-listed hearings. summarily dismiss the later claims under the grounds of 'cause of action estoppel' and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant. I will be seeking 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 had never experienced before until your aggressive ex-clamper client set its sights on me.

Their conduct was one of the reasons I moved out of my home to get away from them and live at a home that is not threatened by a third party money-grabbing parking operator. You cannot get much more harassing than forcing a person to move home to escape the torment.

The conduct of this Claimant and their supposed debt recovery and legal representatives (not just Moorside) 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 which I believe will pave the way for the court to order the Claimant to pay my full costs.

The message for your client is to cease and desist, and if they fail to understand, may I refer them - and you - to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

Yours faithfully,

MThomas95

Yes at court claim stage looking at filling out MCOL now.

1505grandad

"Moreover, your client had their chance with that first claim and should have brought all matters relating to outstanding parking charges at the time of filling that claim."

Pedantic observation in case of straight c & p of another C-m excellent reposte to scammers  -  typo?

Coupon-mad

MThomas95 said:

Yes at court claim stage looking at filling out MCOL now.

Aargh that's not how it seemed. Obviously you can't send that reply then because you have a defence to do.

We didn't know you were at claim stage, did we? Have you shown us the claim form?

But I'll leave the pre-action reply here (typo sorted - thanks @1505grandad) despite the fact you can't use it yourself. I'll leave it here because it might be useful for others (and part of it can be used by your partner, if they are not at claim stage yet).

MThomas95

No problem. No i've only just made you aware of that & i've not shown the claim forms yet. My question still applies if you are able to help. As I have two claim forms, one which is in my name and is my vehicle, & another that is in my name but is my partners vehicle ( although I am named driver & was the driver ), is the process the same & do i just have to do two lots of defence etc.

Coupon-mad

Yes, two lots of defence.

Please show us both of the POC.

And edit your thread title too please.

MThomas95

Partners Car POC:


My Car POC:

Coupon-mad

'Issued between'. That's not specific enough. And there's nothing about the breaches either.

These two would be worth asking @troublemaker22 to apply to strike both claims out.  He is a solicitor who is doing strike out applications of claims exactly like these, free of all fees. i.e. free to you. He raises money for charity from costs awarded at the hearing which he will attend.

Send him a pm.

MThomas95

That would be brilliant if we could get these thrown out before going along this entire process once again.

Saying that, I would quite like to get some funds back from these people, so if I do go all the way to a hearing, I will be pushing for a claim against the claimants.