Total car parks, 2 PCNs

Coupon-mad

Of course you need something before. Read it. Makes no sense otherwise! Then re-read my advice.

You've also called them "claims 2 and 3"?

Ab93

Of course sorry, would you suggest I bring that up under ‘3. Background’? And then add the rest into para 4? Thanks 

Ab93

Or even 2. Facts known to the defendant? Thanks 

Ab93

Would something like this work? 

Inserted either at the start of para 2, 3 or 4? 

The defendant would like to bring to the attention of the judge that there is already a claim filed and being pursued by the claimant against the defendant with duplicate facts and/or particulars of claim. The defendant believes the claimant should have brought their entire case in claim no. Xxxxxx.

Coupon-mad

Yes. Exactly. You decide where.  We don't need to direct every word/paragraph for you.

Ab93

Ok perfect thank you, as I will just be editing the previous defence I will post the draft paragraphs 2/3/4 shortly thanks 

Ab93

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.

3.a The defendant would like to bring to the attention of the judge that there is already a claim filed and being pursued by the claimant with duplicate facts and/or particulars of claim. The defendant believes the claimant should have brought their entire case in claim no. XXXXXXX

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  (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.

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.

6. 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 alert 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. 

Ab93

Hi all, I have the witness statement from the claimant saying I can’t use paragraph 19.10 because the code of practice was removed in 2022? I’m sure that was valid at the time of the offence in nov 2023 I can’t seem to find an updated one for that time period only the newest version from Feb ‘25? Any help appreciated thanks 

Ab93

I found one from Feb 24 and it works in my favour even more I think 

Material change - notices

19.10

Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a motorist entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, you must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/ charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.

Would I be right in thinking, and sorry if I’m getting too hopeful, that if my paragraphs can’t be used then neither can theirs? Because any new legislation cannot be applied retrospectively? So either we should be using the same or none at all? If that makes sense I know I’m probably dreaming. Thanks 

Nellymoser

BPA CoP Version 8 seems to be one relevant. You'll find all CoP Versions and dates listed here. 
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring