Received a 2nd LBC from Gladstones, Help?

manooo

Hi,

I previously racked up around 10 tickets parking in my own residential bay/car park apparently without displaying my permit or other times not in a bay as claimed by Premier Park LTD.

I've ignored all tickets from PPL and since around May '22.

Fast forward to October '22 they sent me an LBC requesting payment for around 8 of the tickets for sum of £1360, I followed the advice in the NEWBIE THREAD and sent email of acknowledgement along with SAR request to PPL. 

Dec '22 - I received the SAR request back from PPL with all the info I requested. I heard nothing back from Gladstones or PPL in regards to the 1st LBC after that point.

Jan '23 - I received 2nd LBC this time for only 2 of the tickets to a vehicle registered to me, the other 8 were leased vehicles. Requesting payment of £340.00. Gladstones also text me a message asking not to ignore and pay straight away a few days ago, i'm baffled as to how they got my number & from who? I don't believe PPL has my number and if they do are they allowed to share this with Gladstones, is this not breach of privacy?

Moving on, how would I proceed in this case? same as last time just send letter of acknowledgement and request another SAR + prepare defence? or do I attempt to negotiate to reduce price of all tickets to £60?

I feel like this is just a bluff from them as they have not replied to the 1st LBC, just a thought.

 Your advise is much appreciated.

manooo

Here is a pic of the 2nd LBC 

Coupon-mad

I'd hit them with a reply like this one that I suggested for someone a while back.

You can add in a section setting out the basis of your dispute/defence and attaching evidence if you have it:


 

Dear Sirs, 

I refer to your latest threatogram (your ref: ............).

This is the second LBC you've sent to me and the sum of money demanded has fluctuated ridiculously from £1360 in October, to £340 now, despite the fact no parking charge can exceed £100 and the DLUHC has declared the industry's abusive and self-enriching policy (of exaggerating claims by +£70 added 'damages per PCN') to be 'extorting money from motorists'.

No explanation has been provided for why you appear to have 'forgotten' the PCNs relating to leased vehicle reg xxxxxxx and I presume your plan is to attack me with two separate claims this year. by detaching some of the PCNs that you know full well relate to the same data subject...i.e. me, the potential victim Defendant of yet another series of roboclaims.

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.  

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, either wearing down the Defendant into submission and/or 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 client set its sights on me.

By contrast, this is a Claimant and 'legal' firm who are well used to the court process.  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 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,

manooo

Coupon-mad said:

I'd hit them with a reply like this one that I suggested for someone a while back.

You can add in a section setting out the basis of your dispute/defence and attaching evidence if you have it:


 

Dear Sirs, 

I refer to your latest threatogram (your ref: ............).

This is the second LBC you've sent to me and the sum of money demanded has fluctuated ridiculously from £1360 in October, to £340 now, despite the fact no parking charge can exceed £100 and the DLUHC has declared the industry's abusive and self-enriching policy (of exaggerating claims by +£70 added 'damages per PCN') to be 'extorting money from motorists'.

No explanation has been provided for why you appear to have 'forgotten' the PCNs relating to leased vehicle reg xxxxxxx and I presume your plan is to attack me with two separate claims this year. by detaching some of the PCNs that you know full well relate to the same data subject...i.e. me, the potential victim Defendant of yet another series of roboclaims.

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.  

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, either wearing down the Defendant into submission and/or 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 client set its sights on me.

By contrast, this is a Claimant and 'legal' firm who are well used to the court process.  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 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,

Thank you for this 👍, I will get back to them, let's hope they cease or desist