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

Fruitcake

You may be able to email it to the court you have chosen for the hearing, but it sometimes depends on the file size/number of pages. If it's not too far you can hand deliver it but make sure you get a receipt, and take a photo of the front showing the case number etcetera.

Gladrags should accept the WS by email, especially if they have accepted other documents by that method, but may say they won't. In my opinion it is so they can say they didn't receive it and/or just to make things as difficult as possible for the motorist.

Don't send anything using a "signed for" method. First class from a post office counter, obtaining a free proof of posting receipt should be good enough.

Coupon-mad

Six claims might need six WS bundles from the OP, if the claims have different nuances.

Ubersmush

Reminder of 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. 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)

Ubersmush

In regards to WS - I was going to send these documents:

- my lease
- document on Arnold V National Westminster Bank
- Henderson v Henderson document

Anything else recommended?

Coupon-mad

- Excel v Wilkinson

- Jopson v HomeGuard

- Photos of the signs being unclear/hidden in corners. Compared to a pic of the Beavis sign.

Have a look at the a-f exhibits recommended in the NEWBIES thread WS section.

Did the Judge put this as one hearing for all 6 claims now?

If you lose don't forget to point out that six lots of costs is disproportionate and the Claimant's own fault and that the added £70 or £82 per PCN is an abuse and ludicrous compared to the £9 that the DLUHC's draft IA revealed was the truth (per case, not per PCN).  That draft IA is in the five exemplar WS in the NEWBIES thread and you need it because I doubt your defence was based on the newer version citing the £9 true cost of supposed (failed) debt recovery.

Ubersmush

Did the Judge put this as one hearing for all 6 claims now?
Yes that is correct.

Ubersmush

If you lose don't forget to point out that six lots of costs is disproportionate and the Claimant's own fault and that the added £70 or £82 per PCN is an abuse and ludicrous compared to the £9 that the DLUHC's draft IA revealed was the truth (per case, not per PCN). That draft IA is in the five exemplar WS in the NEWBIES thread and you need it because I doubt your defence was based on the newer version citing the £9 true cost of supposed (failed) debt recovery.

Thanks very much for this - Have looked through the newbie threads and every example WS - what is IA short for?

One thing I noticed is that other people's WS have mentioned the claimant's WS. But I haven't received a WS from the claimant so far.

Castle

IA=Impact Assessment.

Coupon-mad

Ubersmush said:

If you lose don't forget to point out that six lots of costs is disproportionate and the Claimant's own fault and that the added £70 or £82 per PCN is an abuse and ludicrous compared to the £9 that the DLUHC's draft IA revealed was the truth (per case, not per PCN). That draft IA is in the five exemplar WS in the NEWBIES thread and you need it because I doubt your defence was based on the newer version citing the £9 true cost of supposed (failed) debt recovery.

One thing I noticed is that other people's WS have mentioned the claimant's WS. But I haven't received a WS from the claimant so far.

Then don't include that part.

The Template Defence and the WS examples already tell the Judge what "the DLUHC's draft IA" means.  And it is linked. Read it.