DCB Legal 2019 Parking Ticket in own private parking bay

Coupon-mad

You need to explain this better because it isn't the second claim you want dismissed, they can't be asked to consolidate all 4 claims (because two are long over, so only TWO need consolidating, if they are not dismissed outright as an abuse) and you haven't told the court what happened to claims 1 and 2 ... and that you reasonably believed any financial liability was over:

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.

unfairparkingticket12

Thanks @Coupon-mad. Your services are much appreciated. 

Please see draft with updated changes.

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 Defendant has already made full payments of £XXX and £XXX to settle two claims as per Court judgement against Claim XX and Claim XX. These judgements were ordered when the Defendant was out of country and unaware of Claimant court action. The Claimant legal representatives were made aware of the Defendants situation upon his return from abroad but refused to reduce the amount or offer any alternative solutions. After making full payments to the Claimant to prevent long term damage to Defendant credit rating, the Defendant reasonably believed that any financial liability was over.

3.4.  Claimant has also now issued an additional forth claim (Ref XXXXX) on 6th February 2023. 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 any subsequent claims where the cause of action is substantially the same. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss the additional claim (XXXXX) 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)

Coupon-mad

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 

You could add something about that (paragraph 17 onwards looks relevant) and you could even add that link to the transcript.  Supreme Court...I think a Judge will like it.

B789

Coupon-mad said:

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 

You could add something about that (paragraph 17 onwards looks relevant) and you could even add that link to the transcript.  Supreme Court...I think a Judge will like it.

I trawled through that transcript and if I were a judge, I'd not be best pleased at having had to wade through it. Whist it goes deep into estoppel issues, it is incredibly complicated, I think, because it is trying to settle a very complex argument over a patent that was eventually changed after an appeal court made a decision and so on. My only real interest was to find out the outcome for Virgin Atlantic as I was an employee at the time of the case and was privileged to sample their patented folding flat-bed seat. I wonder if my Xmas bonus would have been better that year had they been successful.

Coupon-mad

But para17 alone could be quoted...

unfairparkingticket12

 I'd not be best pleased at having had to wade through it. Whist it goes deep into estoppel issues, it is incredibly complicated

Thanks both for your input. I'm out of my depth here so would appreciate a consensus on whether to include the Para 17 to my defence. Based on what I have seen on the forum, it seems my defence is already longer than most and I wouldn't want to make it overcomplicated if there isn't a need. My last day for response is 13th Feb, but I would like to send the response today is possible. I trust beside the introduction of para 17, the rest of defence can now be sent as per Newbies thread?

A response at your earliest convenience will be appreciated.
 

Coupon-mad

You can leave it out at this stage.  Keep it in mind for a skeleton argument later, if the claim isn't discontinued or dismissed along the way.

unfairparkingticket12

Thanks @Coupon-mad - I have now submitted my response to the email. I electronically signed the document in word and sent it to the email in the newbies thread at 8pm Sunday due to work commitments today. The newbie thread said it  must be sent during working hours but today was last day. 

I have received the acknowledgement email and I have also copied in DCB legal. Anyway to confirm that they have received the email? 

Coupon-mad

You don't need to check and anyway you know from the 12 steps in the Template Defence thread what to expect next from DCBLegal (and not to post here about it, nor the bog standard N180 DQ). 

unfairparkingticket12

Defence has been received so now waiting for next steps. Thanks.

I will now get working on the next Claim which came in on 6th February and post a defence draft here when it is ready.