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

Ubersmush

B789 said:

3.4. 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. 

Try "against the defendant".

This has been updated. Would like to get it emailed off soon so please advise if it is ready 

Ubersmush

I would appreciate any more help with the defence.

B789

Ubersmush said:
This has been updated. Would like to get it emailed off soon so please advise if it is ready 

What is your rush? You have until 27th March to provide your defence. An expert will be along eventually to advise.

26 February at 3:41PM

Coupon-mad

As we are on page six of this thread, we'd need to see the latest draft here on page six!

Also remind us if there is more than one court claim and are the QDR claims all dated the same day?

Ubersmush

Coupon-mad said:

As we are on page six of this thread, we'd need to see the latest draft here on page six!

Also remind us if there is more than one court claim and are the QDR claims all dated the same day?

Four of the claims are dated the same day. One of the court claims is dated 2 days after the others. So they are not all dated the same day.

Coupon-mad

And they are all about the same car park, car, defendant?  Absolutely shocking abuse of the court process by QDR.

If you show us your draft defence paragraphs again we'll look & comment. The regulars tend not to have time to look back on previous pages of overly long threads so you are best showing it in a reply again.

Ubersmush

And they are all about the same car park, car, defendant?  Absolutely shocking abuse of the court process by QDR.

There are two different vehicles. 4 are for the motorcycle, 1 is for the car. The rest is the same.

Here is an excerpt from the defence on the previous page. It includes my additions.

DEFENCE

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.1. There have been six other similar claims filed by the Claimant to the defendant all relating to PCN's at the defendant's address. A full list of claims are as follows:

    a. Claim-XYZ

    b. Claim-XYZ-2 etc (list of 5 claims)

3.2. 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. The defendant believes 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’.

3.3. Authorities to support the Defendant's position that the subsequent claims are all estopped are:

a. 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.

b. 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

3.4. 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 the defendant. The courts may estop further claims beyond the first where the cause of action is substantially the same. 

4. The Particulars refer to the material location as LOCATION. The Defendant has, since DATE, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. XX at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

5.1. The 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 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.

5.2. No signage has been erected on entrance to the property, all erected signage is available only after entry has been granted by fob to the gated property.

6.1. Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, the defendant is entitled with all necessary right of access and quiet enjoyment of the property

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

7. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. 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.

Coupon-mad

Good, I recall it now.  I'd add to the end of para 2:

The Defendant avers that there has been a clear abuse of the court process, as follows: 


...then add this as 8:

8.  In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead these parking charges as one claim, advancing their entire case at the outset which would have significantly reduced costs and court time and removed this unfair burden on a Litigant-in-Person, the Defendant considers six separate concurrent claims to be wholly disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions).

8.1.  It is the Defendant's position that it would not be just, fair nor cost efficient for a Judge to have to find, amalgamate and read all six cases in boxwork and throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering consolidated claims and/or new particulars (followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation).  In the premises, the court is respectfully invited to strike out this claim and all the subsequent near-duplicate claims listed above, and to sanction this Claimant, such that any further claims against this Defendant, relating to similar fact particulars, must not be filed without first obtaining the prior written permission of the court.  

Then para 9 onwards is the reat of the Template Defence (re-numbered accordingly):

9.  The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual...

...etc.

...

Ubersmush

Thanks for that, is the following ready for submission now?

Ill add in the list of claims, any needed personal details and obviously add point 9 and so on into the defence.

DEFENCE

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. The Defendant avers that there has been a clear abuse of the court process, as follows: 

3.1. There have been six other similar claims filed by the Claimant to the defendant all relating to PCN's at the defendant's address. A full list of claims are as follows:

    a. Claim-XYZ

    b. Claim-XYZ-2 etc (list of 5 claims)

3.2. 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. The defendant believes 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’.

3.3. Authorities to support the Defendant's position that the subsequent claims are all estopped are:

a. 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.

b. 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

3.4. 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 the defendant. The courts may estop further claims beyond the first where the cause of action is substantially the same. 

4. The Particulars refer to the material location as LOCATION. The Defendant has, since DATE, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. XX at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

5.1. The 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 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.

5.2. No signage has been erected on entrance to the property, all erected signage is available only after entry has been granted by fob to the gated property.

6.1. Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, the defendant is entitled with all necessary right of access and quiet enjoyment of the property

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

7. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. 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.  In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead these parking charges as one claim, advancing their entire case at the outset which would have significantly reduced costs and court time and removed this unfair burden on a Litigant-in-Person, the Defendant considers six separate concurrent claims to be wholly disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions).

8.1.  It is the Defendant's position that it would not be just, fair nor cost efficient for a Judge to have to find, amalgamate and read all six cases in boxwork and throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering consolidated claims and/or new particulars (followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation).  In the premises, the court is respectfully invited to strike out this claim and all the subsequent near-duplicate claims listed above, and to sanction this Claimant, such that any further claims against this Defendant, relating to similar fact particulars, must not be filed without first obtaining the prior written permission of the court.  

(9 etc)

Le_Kirk

Ubersmush said:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. The Defendant avers that there has been a clear abuse of the court process, as follows: 

3.1. There have been six other similar claims filed by the Claimant to the defendant all relating to PCN's at the defendant's address. A full list of claims are as follows:

    a. Claim-XYZ

    b. Claim-XYZ-2 etc (list of 5 claims)

3.2. 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. The defendant believes 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’.

Some suggestions above