Received Claims from QDR relating to numerous tickets for motorbike in residence parking

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DIST

and you'll find hundreds won every year, often re multiple PCNs.

Each case is different but you are NOT liable for further costs except a hearing fee if you lose at a hearing (£27).  There is no risk and the £60 or £70 per PCN is removed by most Judges as wholly disproportionate.

Ubersmush

Ah yes I'll do that now! And are the solicitors fees etc just for scaremongering then?

Coupon-mad

Scaremongering, a PPC? What do you think?! 😏

Trash, innit...

Le_Kirk

Ubersmush said:

Cheers for that and your help so far. I have to admit it is daunting reading other threads and realising there is a lot of work ahead. I'm not sure this is a slam dunk and I'm a bit worried I'll still have to pay a lot of the costs after doing a lot of work. But I am enjoying learning more about the legal process. 

I talk to the property managers today but there is nothing they can do about it really. I'm not going to raise a fuss with them because we want a quiet life.

You should be hammering the property managers as you pay them through your service charge or ground rent. They work for you not the PPC!

Galloglass

You should be hammering the property managers as you pay them through your service charge or ground rent. They work for you not the PPC!

Still can't find that. Doesn't seem to be in the Residential Code? Where have you seen it?

https://www.rics.org/content/dam/ricsglobal/documents/standards/Service_Charge_Residential_Management_Code_3rd_edition.pdf

Do you mean this (page 3 - definitions)

The managing agent will be engaged by the freeholder, superior landlord, the residents’ management company or right to manage company. Service charges will normally be paid to this agent. (The term 'managing agent' has been used in this Code.)

Ubersmush

Regarding future court dates
Will I have to write to the court after each court date for each claim has been set, or can I get these condensed into one court date before the claim dates are set?

Regarding Defence:

In the template defence (which I am not going to re-post in full as it is quite long), I will add in the following paragraphs. Here are some draft paragraphs for my own reference while I'm collecting this info.  I am using the above thread I posted a reference to. If this is not a good idea please let me know.

It appears as though there used to be a template for residential claims. It might be heavily out of date now though.

Obviously this is not the final text or the final numbered points.

4. The underground car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents, and a general area for residents who do not have an allocated space. Entry to the underground parking is 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.

5.1. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

6. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease Note - there are no terms in the lease so is this paragraph worth keeping?. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8.2. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment WHICH IS OUTLINED IN THE LEASE, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

Because there is nothing in the lease about parking, I might need to edit the above. I have bolded additions or potential edits

Coupon-mad

Do you have more than one live court claim about the same Claimant, location etc? Then you must add the words found when searching the forum for:

estoppel Henderson defence true

Ubersmush

I'm going to use this defence that another forumite recently posted (also against QDR) with a few tweaks. Changes in bold

Cause of action estoppel

1. There have been six other similar claims filed by the Claimant to the defendant all relating to PCN's at the defendant's address.

2. It is my strong belief that the Claimant is purposefully abusing the court process to their own ends by submitting multiple claims for same circumstance PCN’s all of which they would have been aware of. I believe they do this to bombard any defendant such as myself with multiple claim forms to have to acknowledge service of, submit defence statements, witness statements and prepare cases for, in the hope that defendants, who mostly have no knowledge of civil law, will give up or that claims will ‘slip through the net’.

3. Cases related to this are:

1. 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 involving the same subject matter’. This case involves the same Claimant and Defendant, The same vehicle, The same Car Park and the same manner in which the PCN was issued.

2. In Henderson v Henderson [1843]67 ER 313 The court noted the following…’when a matter becomes subject to litigation, i) the parties are required to advance their whole case, ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to reopen 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

4. By filing the first claim and failing to advance the whole case at that time, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact Parking Charges against me. The courts may estop further claims beyond the first where the cause of action is substantially the same. 

Ubersmush

I have received another claim with an issue date of 24/02/2023, three days after the original 4 claims.
I have 5 claims in total now.

Is it worth emailing/contacting QDR and double checking that I have received all claims that they have filed against me? Obviously it would be a disaster if I did not receive one, and they are being forwarded to me from my previous address.

Ubersmush

Have not received an email back RE SAR sent to PPC. Is it worth updating this thread if/when that SAR comes through?