DCB Legal 2019 Parking Ticket in own private parking bay

unfairparkingticket12

Unfortunately, a bit short on time due to issues with MSE account.

I have received claim form from UK Parking Control Limited with an issue date 09/01/2023. I completed AoS after day 8.

To give some background, I followed the instructions on the forum and requested SAR from UK parking control in October for other claims but they did not issue any details related to this particular ticket. Only when I provided them details of the parking ticket in an email, they apologised and sent it to me on 6th February 2023.

The claim is for parking in a residential car park with the car incorrectly parked in the parking bay sticking out and covering part of an empty parking bay on the left. The car was parked to avoid water leaking from the roof.

This is one of four tickets that UK parkin control issued to me whilst renting a property on site. I still have another open claim form which was received today which I hope to fight following current submission. Previously I had to pay full claim amount (around £300) against two previous claims to remove CCJ from my credit rating. I couldn’t manage them as the documents and the CCJ was issued whilst I was out of country for an extended time due to Covid. I moved out of the rented property in 2020 and do not have my tenancy documents.

Initially, I appealed against the ticket using the process set out on it, telling them it was due to a leaking roof however to my recollection they never responded.

I am very grateful for the information and assistance provided here and have used the standard defence from the forum. Your advice will be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

 I still have another open claim form which was received today which I hope to fight following current submission. Previously I had to pay full claim amount (around £300) against two previous claims to remove CCJ from my credit rating. I couldn’t manage them as the documents and the CCJ was issued whilst I was out of country for an extended time due to Covid. 

The above is very important.

They cannot detach elements of a claim and issue several separate ones like a form of torture.

Search the forum for cause of action estoppel Henderson and include that near the start of your defence (using our template defence).

unfairparkingticket12

Thanks Coupon-mad. I read multiple posts on forum including cause of action estoppel Henderson but thought that applied to a claim which was issued on the same day.  

Defence becomes a bit lengthy with proposed addition. My Defence based on suggestion.

3. 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. 

The Claimant has issued two claims with identical Particulars with the exception of the Parking Charge number and issue date.  

Claim number CLAIM1 - relates to a PCN issued on XX/09/2019

Claim number CLAIM2 - relates to a PCN issued on the XX/02/2020, relying on the same facts.

 3.1. 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.”

 3.2. 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''.

3.3 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. Defendant sent Subject Access Request (SAR) request to Claimant’s data protection team on 20th October 2022 requesting a list of all PCN’s, however Claimant failed to issue the PCN record to Defendant as of 5th February 2023.

5. Defendant was a Tenant of the flat xxx at xx, which was managed by the Claimant. The underground car parking area contained allocated parking spaces demised to some residents, and a general area for visitors. Entry to the underground parking was by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

6. The alleged event was over three and half years ago so it is difficult to remember the complete facts, however it is known that the Defendant did park in the allocated car park on the alleged date of the event with the car sticking out of the bay which was allocated to defendant to avoid getting wet and prevent car damage. This was due to a leaking roof which the Landowner was aware of at the time.

KeithP

unfairparkingticket12 said:

5. Defendant was a Tenant of the flat xxx at xx, which was managed by the Claimant. 

What??

You told us the Claimant is UK Parking Control Limited.
Are they managing flats now?    

unfairparkingticket12

I hope not Point noted. @KeithP can you confirm the last day to file my defence if the issue date was 09/01/2023?

Changed to : Defendant was a Tenant of the flat xxx at xx, entitled to a dedicated car parking space for one vehicle. The car park was managed by the Claimant. 
 

Coupon-mad

I'd remove: "The car park was managed by the Claimant."  It gives them a status that you as a tenant do not (did not) know about.  

Also, surely:

"The Claimant has issued two claims"

should be

"The Claimant has issued four claims across xx months, all for matters that should have been in the first claim."

Then you list all four.

KeithP

unfairparkingticket12 said:

@KeithP can you confirm the last day to file my defence if the issue date was 09/01/2023? 

I didn't react to that earlier because your opening post put doubts in my mind about what, and how many, claims were in play here.
Mention of CCJs meant to me this wasn't straightforward.

But, if you are now saying that there is one Claim outstanding with an Issue Date of 9th January then...

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th February 2023 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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'.

unfairparkingticket12

Thanks @Coupon-mad for your advice. I have made the changes. Do you feel the rest of it can be submitted or should I add / take out any details.

@KeithP - Thanks for the dates. Perhaps, I wasn't very clear for you. I was issued with 4 tickets in total. If I remember, I unsuccessfully appealed against two of them and never heard back so assumed they went away. In reality, they were sending correspondence to my old address. They managed to track my current address and issued the claim forms for 2 Tickets. Unfortunately, this happened over the Christmas, new year period, when I was abroad for around 3 months so they followed the process and a CCJ was issued against me, even though I wasn't even in the country or knew what was happening. I paid the full balance for both claims and got the CCJ removed instead of paying similar amounts for setting them aside ( regretted it after I explored the forum and read posts). I would take any opportunity to take that money back from them but I think it's too late. 

So now, they have issued the remaining two claims, one issued on 9th 2023 January and the other more recently on 6th February 2023, and I am here to build my defence for the claim issued on 6th February. 

Hope this explains it for you and will give you an opportunity to provide your comments against the defence.

B789

When you paid the two earlier CCJs, were those payments later than 30 days after the judgements? If so, whilst they may be "satisfied", in this case they would still be on your record for 6 years. Either way, you should really have gone for a set aside, either with or without consent.

Those two claims were probably served to the correct address, in which case you probably wouldn't have been able to claim back the £275 fee. You may have been able to get a set aside with consent which would have been cheaper, just over £100 but the claimant would have insisted that the original judgement be agreed to in the process.

Maybe one of the more legally experienced regulars can advise on whether those two earlier CCJs can still be set aside and the original claims contested.

Coupon-mad

No, you are here to defend this one first:

I have received claim form from UK Parking Control Limited with an issue date 09/01/2023. I completed AoS after day 8.

Then the newer one, same wording except changing the claim number at the top and the duplicate one on the list of four.

Show us your latest draft.

unfairparkingticket12

Hi @B789 - Luckily, I returned from my vacation in time so managed to make those payments within 30 days from the judgement to remove the CCJ's. I will explore options and consult experienced regulars once my current claims have been dealt with. 

Thanks @Coupon-mad. Here is the latest draft

1. Same as defence template..

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

3. 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. 

The Claimant has issued four claims across eight months, all for matters that should have been in the first claim, with identical Particulars with the exception of the Parking Charge number and issue date.  

Claim number CLAIM1 - relates to a PCN issued on XX/09/2019

Claim number CLAIM2 - relates to a PCN issued on the XX/02/2020,

Claim number CLAIM3 - relates to a PCN issued on the XX/XX/2020

Claim number CLAIM4 - relates to a PCN issued on the XX/XX/2020, relying on the same facts.

 3.1. 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.”

 3.2. 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''.

3.3 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. Defendant sent Subject Access Request (SAR) request to Claimant’s data protection team on 20th October 2022 requesting a list of all PCN’s, however Claimant failed to issue the PCN record to Defendant until 6th February 2023 for Claim (current claim Ref number).

5. Defendant was a Tenant of the flat xxx at xx. The underground car parking area contained allocated parking spaces demised to some residents, and a general area for visitors. Entry to the underground parking was by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

6. The alleged event was over three and half years ago so it is difficult to remember the complete facts, however it is known that the Defendant did park in the allocated car park on the alleged date of the event with the car sticking out of the bay which was allocated to defendant to avoid getting wet and prevent car damage. This was due to a leaking roof which the Landowner was aware of at the time. 

7. The facts in this defence.... (from the defence template)