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

Ubersmush

Updated

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. The defendant believes they do this to bombard any defendant with multiple claim forms to have to acknowledge service, 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)

Coupon-mad

Great stuff.

Do them all like that - emailing each signed & dated defence one by one - but carefully changing and double-checking the claim number in your heading and your covering email every time, to be certain you don't miss one, nor mistype one.

Then make sure EVERY ONE gets a CCBC acknowledgement email back because the defences are not safely received without that x 6.

Le_Kirk

It is my the defendant's strong belief

Change as above and any other places where you have used "my" or "I" as defences are written in the third person.

Ubersmush

Le_Kirk said:

It is my the defendant's strong belief

Change as above and any other places where you have used "my" or "I" as defences are written in the third person.

Have done so, thank-you.

Coupon-mad said:

Great stuff.

Do them all like that - emailing each signed & dated defence one by one - but carefully changing and double-checking the claim number in your heading and your covering email every time, to be certain you don't miss one, nor mistype one.

Then make sure EVERY ONE gets a CCBC acknowledgement email back because the defences are not safely received without that x 6.

Have sent off all claim defences. Have only received the auto emails so far. Will the MCOL site update at all with references to the received defences?

Le_Kirk

MCOL will update but it takes time, so long as you have the receipt of auto-acknowledgment you will be fine. Just check MCOL once a week.

Ubersmush

Just an update. It has been 3 weeks, I have heard nothing since I submitted my defence. I haven't even received the questionnaire yet.

And of course I have been sent another claim by QDR. Ill be submitting virtually the same defence for that one.

Boat_to_Bolivia

As @Le_Kirk suggested above, have you checked your MCOL history?

Ubersmush

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

As @Le_Kirk suggested above, have you checked your MCOL history?

Yes, every claim still has under the latest document:  "

Acknowledgement of Service"

i.e. there has been no update in 3 weeks on mcol.

KeithP

Check your MCOL Claim History from time to time and if it doesn't show something like...
Your defence was received on dd/mm/2023 
...then query the situation with the CCBC - phone number on your Claim Form.

Ubersmush

Thanks KeithP I hadn't looked in that section.

Okay going into the claim history of each claim - the claim defences have been received (last update).
So not much of an update - just waiting on the directions questionnaire