Total car parks, 2 PCNs

Coupon-mad

See my final edit.

Number every paragraph.

Ab93

Please forgive me I don’t quite understand what you’re saying needs to be changed to what sorry, are you saying I should replace the part you’ve told me to remove with what you’ve said? 

Or to condense my para 3 to finish with ‘the claimant declined’ and then start para 4 with what you’ve said? As in change the template to your words? 

Thanks again sorry just want to double check! 

Ab93

Here is how it looks now after adjustments, 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXXX

Between

XXXXXXXX

(Claimant) 

- and -

XXXXXXXX

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC')

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver. 

Background

3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration mark XXXXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

4. It is admitted that the Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked at XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXXX. The defendant parked here around 7am after a night shift and took a short walk to his home address. The defendant then received a PCN(s) over a week later. The defendant definitely did not notice any new or clear signage at the time of driving into the car park and parking the vehicle and was thus unaware of committing any breach until the PCN(s) arrived via notice to keeper letter(s). The defendant frequented this car park between 2016 and 2023 because it offered free parking to the public, and this location was close to the defendants home address where the defendant has to share a single parking permit. At some point the operator seems to have taken control of the car park, however it did not take sufficient steps to notify regular users of any change in previous arrangements. As a member of the BPA AOS scheme, the operator is obliged to comply with the BPA AOS Code of Practice, section 19.10 of which reads as follows

:-19.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.

The operator has plainly breached paragraph 19.10 of the BPA AOS Code of Practice and must for that reason cancel the PCN(s). The defendant instructed the claimant to proceed straight to court to dispute the alleged debt without including any debt collectors or adding any extra fees unnecessarily, the claimant declined. 

5. The Claimant will concede that little/no financial loss has arisen (save for their argument that an unknown new 'parking fee' applied, but that was not sufficiently prominent to be noticed or bind the Defendant). In any case, in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and…(rest of new template) 

Coupon-mad

I think that draft looks good except change 'notify' to 'alert'.

Ab93

Ok thank you so much really appreciate your help and sorry for all the questions just want to make sure I get it right! Thanks again! 

Ab93

Good morning all,

I recently filed my N180 questionnaire, and alongside it received another claim form for the other 2 PCNs,

I intend to file the same defence, do I acknowledge the first one in this one and reference the claim number? For example adding to the end of para 4:  ‘the defendant requested that the claimant combine all outstanding PCNs including claim number xxxxxxx into one claim as to not waste any parties or the courts time, the claimant declined.’ 

Any feedback welcome and appreciated, thanks 

Coupon-mad

No. You don't want them consolidated, you want the second claim struck out. Search the forum for:

Henderson cause action estoppel defence

Ab93

Thanks coupon mad! So if I were to add this?(and of course renumber the paragraphs) 

CAUSE OF ACTION ESTOPPEL

4.         In light of the legal principles detailed below, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court exercises its authority under CPR 3.4 2(b) to strike out one or both claims 2 and 3 (CLAIM NUMBERS XXXX and XXXX) on the grounds of cause of action estoppel given that all three exaggerated claims involve the exact same facts, details, residential location, same vehicle and alleged contractual terms/breach and all cases involved the same parties, " Please refer to Exhibit DW2

3.5. 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

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

No exhibits in a defence so remove "Please refer to Exhibit DW2". 

Also you can only launch into that bit if you've firstly set the scene by stating that this is a duplicate facts claim ... blah blah.

Ab93

Sorry do you mean if I want to add this I also need to add something before? Or just that the exhibits part needs removing and it’s good to add? Thanks