Multiple UKPC charges for tenant living in Private Rd

nadsterstar

Hi,

Here is my first pass at the defence, can you please take a look and let me know if I'm going in the right direction. Many thanks!

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.

3.     The Defendant was a lawful resident of the private estate and has displayed a valid parking permit, which was issued by the Landlord of the property. The tenancy agreement entered into by the Defendant does not stipulate any penalty for parking on the road-side, nor does it impose any conditions related to parking in the private estate. Furthermore, the management company in charge of the private estate (xxxxxxx) has not communicated to the Defendant any terms and conditions of parking, except for the instruction to not park more than one motor vehicle on the estate. The UKPC signs on the road are inadequate and illegible, as they are positioned at an elevated height, approximately 10ft from ground level. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be bound by any restrictions asserted by the Claimant.

4.     On the dates listed in the claim, it is noted that the resident parking spaces were fully occupied, presumably by unauthorised vehicles, so the Defendant had no option other to park in an unobstructive roadside location.

5.     The Claimant has issued 6 PCNs over a span of 5 days, out of which 3 PCNs are issued within the same 24-hour period. This constitutes an abuse of process, as the Claimant has either engaged in double charging for the same contravention, resulting in unjust enrichment, or has violated the BPA Code of Practice regarding the required ‘observation’ periods and ‘grace periods’.

6.     The defendant would like to bring the attention of the court to a previous claim (Claim No. xxxxxxx which has already been paid by the Defendant on xxxxxx), and further parking charges already known to the Claimant, with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. Whilst no formal proceedings have been entered into for subsequent parking charges, the issuing of two separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, and more recent authorities, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. The Court is invited to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

After this I am using the standard template with the additions for UKPC/DCB legal I found:

1.     The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.

2.     The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum.

3.     The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form. The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity. The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3

4.     The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"

5.     No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either.

6.     In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it 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) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out.

Coupon-mad

Remove this "Whilst no formal proceedings have been entered into for subsequent parking charges,"

And make it clear when you talk about sanctions, you mean you expect the court to estop this second claim.

nadsterstar

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this "Whilst no formal proceedings have been entered into for subsequent parking charges,"

And make it clear when you talk about sanctions, you mean you expect the court to estop this second claim.

Thanks, added this:

6.     The defendant would like to bring the attention of the court to a previous claim (Claim No. xxxxxxx which has already been paid by the Defendant on xxxxxx), and further parking charges already known to the Claimant, with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of two separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, and more recently Arnold -v- National Westminster Bank PLC [1991] 3 ALL ER 41, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. The Court is invited to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant and estop this second claim and any further claims beyond the first.

Do you think I should bring this point 6 higher-up the defence so it is point 4? This seems to be the key point in my defence, I have another 3 more claims likely to come after this lot.

Coupon-mad

Yes you could move it up.

nadsterstar

Just an update.

I successfully submitted my defence on 25th May. A few days later DCBLegal wrote a letter suggesting that their client might be able to make an offer to settle out of court. I have since received another letter from DCB indicating that they intend to proceed with the claim, enclosing copy of their directions questionnaire and another offer to settle the case out of court.

KeithP

nadsterstar said:

Just an update.

I successfully submitted my defence on 25th May. A few days later DCBLegal wrote a letter suggesting that their client might be able to make an offer to settle out of court. I have since received another letter from DCB indicating that they intend to proceed with the claim, enclosing copy of their directions questionnaire and another offer to settle the case out of court.

You were expecting that weren't you?

Item 7 on that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence says...

Items 8, 9 and 10 on that list might be worth another read too.

nadsterstar

Thanks Keith, yes, was expecting that, I'm just updating as things happen, might help others.  Today I received the Directions Questionnaire from the court. I downloaded the PDF version, filled out electronically, and emailed back to the court and DCB.

Coupon-mad

nadsterstar said:

Thanks Keith, yes, was expecting that, I'm just updating as things happen, might help others.  Today I received the Directions Questionnaire from the court. I downloaded the PDF version, filled out electronically, and emailed back to the court and DCB.

Glad you are keen to help others. It's why we are here!  Let's change the law to help ALL motorists...here is how you can help:

Whilst your case is quiet, please could you help us with OTHER car park evidence that I need in August & September, to take to the Government?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6463361/dluhc-private-parking-code-government-launches-call-for-evidence-discussion-thread#latest

Please please add photos as seen there!  

Think of this call for evidence when strolling around your town and you spot car parks at churches, shops & businesses that are unrestricted yet there is no abuse, no 'carmageddon'!

OR supermarkets with £70 PCNs only.

OR hospitals with £50 or £60 to deter abuse.

All I need is photos and location.

I will do the rest.

I can PROMISE this evidence will be seen by the decision-makers because I'm on the Code of Practice Government Steering Group representing motorists, and the DLUHC will read my submissions.

Umkomaas

nadsterstar said:

Thanks Keith, yes, was expecting that, I'm just updating as things happen, might help others.  Today I received the Directions Questionnaire from the court. I downloaded the PDF version, filled out electronically, and emailed back to the court and DCB.

The road to discontinuation. 

nadsterstar

Hi, I emailed back the DQ on 24th August to CCBC, and got an automated response. Should I expect to see the MCOL updated? Its been a month, so just checking if I should be concerned or follow up with CCBC?

Thanks