Multiple UKPC charges for tenant living in Private Rd

B789

Please refer back to the 12-point checklist you are supposed to be following. It is the first post of the template defence thread. All is explained in there.

KeithP

Wait patiently.
The CCBC seem to be taking a couple of months or more to deal with this sort of thing.
You have the auto reply so nothing to be worried about.

nadsterstar

Hi again, I have received another claim from through (the 3rd one) so I have gone ahead and submitted the AOS via MCOL today. As a reminder I have already received

1st Claim form (I missed the letter, went to CCJ and paid. I hadn't found this forum at the time)
2nd Claim form (currently at DQ stage, waiting for court date - Defence is furher back in this thread) 

This claim is referring to 3 other PCN's (same particulars as the previous claims), these PCN's were known to UKPC when I requested an SAR at the time of the 2nd Claim.

I have gone ahead and drafted up the defence below (along with the remaining standard defence) Could I ask someone to check this and confirm that this seems like the right approach. It is similar to previous defence but expands on cause of action estoppel.

Any advice much appreciated!

Thanks
Nadsterstar

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.     The Defendant was a lawful resident of the private estate and 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 roadside, nor does it impose any conditions related to parking in the private estate. Furthermore, the management company in charge of the private estate (Steeple Hill Management Limited) has not communicated to the Defendant any terms and conditions of parking, except the instruction to park no 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.     The Defendant avers that there has been a clear abuse of the court process, as follows:

 

4.1.  There have been two 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-xxxxxxxx (Paid by the defendant on xxx xxx 2023)

b.     Claim-xxxxxxxx

4.2.  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’.

 

4.3.  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

4.4.  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. 

 

5.     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.

 

6.     The Claimant has issued 2 of the 3 PCNs 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’.

Coupon-mad

You need to use the new Template Defence, as it changed recently.

UncleThomasCobley

If it is a UKPC claim, it was most likely filed by DCB Legal. There is a recent appeal judgment that should be added to the Template defence mentioned above by @Coupon-mad. When you find that template, insert the following new paras #2 and #3 and then renumber all subsequent paragraphs and include the bold sub-heading as you need the allocating judge to notice it:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

nadsterstar

Thanks, I have found the template and put it together below. I'm not sure if this flows right, would appreciate some feedback.  Where should my Para 8 go? Should I have heading to break out the 'cause of action estoppel' defence points

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2.     The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

 

3.     A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

XXX  TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS XXX

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 than to park in an unobstructive roadside location.

5.     The Defendant was a lawful resident of the private estate and 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 roadside, nor does it impose any conditions related to parking in the private estate. Furthermore, the management company in charge of the private estate (Steeple Hill Management Limited) has not communicated to the Defendant any terms and conditions of parking, except the instruction to park no 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.

 6.     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 would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

 

Cause of Action Estoppel

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

7.1     There have been two 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-xxxxxxxx (Paid by the defendant on xx April 2023)

b.     Claim-xxxxxxxx

7.2     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’.

7.3.  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

7.4.  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. 

8.  The Claimant has issued 2 of the 3 PCNs 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’.

9.  The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen.... REST OF THE NEW TEMPLATE

Coupon-mad

Remove your para 4 (adds nothing and effectively admits fault; don't do that) and replace it with your para 6 moved up.

Then move up your para 8 to become the new para 6.

I think it will all flow better.

nadsterstar

Thanks @Coupon-mad updated with your suggestions.

Any other thoughts? 

Should I mention the reason why I paid the first CCJ? Or any detail on the open claim (currently waiting for court date)

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.     The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

4.     A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

XXX  TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS XXX

5.     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 would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

6.     The Defendant was a lawful resident of the private estate and 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 roadside, nor does it impose any conditions related to parking in the private estate. Furthermore, the management company in charge of the private estate (Steeple Hill Management Limited) has not communicated to the Defendant any terms and conditions of parking, except the instruction to park no 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.

7.     The Claimant has issued 2 of the 3 PCNs 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’.

Cause of Action Estoppel

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

8.1.     There have been two 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-xxxxxxxx (Paid by the defendant on xx April 2023)

b.     Claim-xxxxxxxx

8.2.     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’.

8.3..     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

8.4.  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. 

9. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen....REST OF THE NEW TEMPLATE

Coupon-mad

I think that's fine.

nadsterstar

Defence sent - auto response received. Thanks!