Help needed with two claims froms

seaside_pillow

hello,

I need help with two claim forms, and I have some questions.

About the Claims:

the keeper received two claim forms from the same PPC, and they relate to the same land.

Claim 1 was issued on 11...03...2024 and the POC states that it is for two PCN's.  First PCN occurred on 04...06...2023 (this was not issued through the yellow notice to driver ticket, it was sent through post).  The second PCN occurred on 06...12...2022, but had the yellow notice to driver. AoS for claim 1 was filled on 20...03...2024

Calim 2 was issued on 13...03...2024 and POC states it is for one PCN. This PCN occurred on 05...06...2023. AoS for claim 2 was filled on 21...03...2024

Background:

The keeper has received several letters from the PPC, the debt recovery, and their solicitors (G%L%A%D%S%T%O%N%E%S) in the past. However, they didn’t appeal or pay any of these alleged fines because they don't want to give money to a PPC. Moreover, they were never the driver, and they were not insured to drive the car since they've had it as the keeper. The keeper vehicle is a Motability vehicle, and they have two family members who are the drivers.

The alleged violations of the contract occurred on private land in a mixed-use development area. The keeper has a family member who lives in this area, and the other family members drivers were the ones who drove the vehicle to visit them and park without the presence of the keeper.

The POC:

POC for Claim 1

The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXXXX (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at B%a%r%k%i%ng R%i%v%e%rsi%de - IG%11, on 04…06…2023, 06…12…2022, thus incurring the parking charges (the 'PCN's'). The PCN's were not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN's from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 per PCN, £70.00 per PCN contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £25.14 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.07 per day.

POC for Claim 2:

The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXXXX (the Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract") at B%a%r%k%i%ng R%i%v%e%rsi%de - IG%11, on 05…06…2023 thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN*). The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £9.25 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.

What happened so far:

The NTKs and their issue dates seems to be compliant with the POFA.

The Keeper has already made a defence as suggested in the template:

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').

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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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 denies being the driver.

 
But if the keeper were to add some further points such as the ones mentioned below, shall they continue to do so, and if yes, which paragraph should have them:

“Under POFA section 4 Paragrph 8 (2)(e) the keeper is only “invited” to pay the unpaid alleged parking charge, therefore they are not obliged to pay any money to the PPC.”

"The defendant seeks to bring attention to the court regarding the failure of both P%C%M, and B%R%L, the landowner responsible for unit development, to provide adequate parking for disabled Blue Badge (BB) holders. Despite not being the driver of the alleged offense, the defendant, who is disabled, faces significant barriers in accessing the area due to the lack of suitable parking spaces for BB holders. This deficiency not only confines the defendant to their residence, as visiting family members in the said area is discouraged, but also represents a clear violation of the London Plan 2021 Policy T6.5. With an expansive development area spanning 7.7 hectares and comprising more than 1600 units, the existence of only one designated non-residential disabled parking space is grossly inadequate. Such disregard for accessibility not only raises concerns of discrimination but also contradicts the claimant's purported affiliation with the disabled charity organization "Disabled Motoring UK." These actions and violations underscore the urgent need for P%C%M, and the landowner to rectify the situation and uphold their obligations to provide adequate parking for disabled individuals."


Your help will be greatly appreciated. 

seaside_pillow

I noticed the spoiler part is not displaying on my end, so might be the case for others as well, but below is what I have:

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').

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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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 denies being the driver.

Coupon-mad

You haven't added any facts nor the Chan images.

Obviously the D can state what they know about the location (residential? Is it where they or a friend lives?) why it may have been used for a stop and that they would only have been the passenger because it's a Motability vehicle and they are disabled and don't drive.

Which PPC?

I can see these are Gladstones claims.

The second claim defence must add the usual extra defence paragraph about Henderson v Henderson and the doctrine of cause of action estoppel.

Search the forum and copy that point into the later dated claim's defence facts.  They should have raised ONE claim, not two.

seaside_pillow

You haven't added any facts nor the Chan images.

I am ware of the Chan images, and will add it later once I have a proper draft. 

seaside_pillow

Obviously the D can state what they know about the location (residential? Is it where they or a friend lives?) why it may have been used for a stop and that they would only have been the passenger because it's a Motability vehicle and they are disabled and don't drive.

Where will this be placed, inside the defence facts?

Which PPC?

P%C%M UK, it happened on the same land (different location) where this one happened as well and have the same signs as well https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6482023/gladstones-claim-form/p1. 

The second claim defence must add the usual extra defence paragraph about Henderson v Henderson and the doctrine of cause of action estoppel.

Search the forum and copy that point into the later dated claim's defence facts.  They should have raised ONE claim, not two.

Can they not use the same defence for both claims where the points u mentioned are also included ( Henderson v Henderson and the doctrine of cause of action estoppel.) and file them in one email?

Does that mean I have to create two defences where the second claim includes points in relation to " Henderson v Henderson and the doctrine of cause of action estoppel."  and they will be filled separately?

KeithP

I note that the Defendant has Acknowledged Service of both of the Claims and wonder whether that was wise in this situation.

seaside_pillow

 If I use the 'cause of action estoppel' doctrine in the appeal/defence, will that be an issue if the Defendant has Acknowledged Service of both of the Claims ?


For claim 1 which was issued on 11...03...2024 and given that the day of service is 5 days after this date 16...03...2024. And AoS is filed on 20...03...2024 ----> deadline for defence is 12...04...2024 

For claim 2 which was issued on 13...03...2024 and given that the day of service is 5 days after this date 18...03...2024. And AoS is filed on 21...03...2024 ----> deadline for defence is 14...04...2024 

Is my calculations right ?

KeithP

seaside_pillow said:

For claim 1 which was issued on 11...03...2024 and given that the day of service is 5 days after this date 16...03...2024. And AoS is filed on 20...03...2024 ----> deadline for defence is 12...04...2024 

For claim 2 which was issued on 13...03...2024 and given that the day of service is 5 days after this date 18...03...2024. And AoS is filed on 21...03...2024 ----> deadline for defence is 14...04...2024 

Is my calculations right ?

No court deadline will ever be on a non-working day.
By my calculations, for both claim 1 and claim 2 your Defence filing deadline is 4pm on Monday 15th April 2024.

I'll leave it to someone else to comment on whether you should file two entirely separate Defences or not.

seaside_pillow

Any advice on whether to file two separate Defences or not?

Coupon-mad

As I already advised.

Two defences: and only the second one has Henderson v Henderson added.

seaside_pillow

Below is the defence draft for both claims, please let me know what you think.

1.0      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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2.0      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.

3.0      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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

Cause of Action estoppel **This will be added to the second claim only as advised**

4.0      Being legally represented, the Claimant knows, or should know, that by detaching or allowing to remain detached, elements of alleged debts and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. 

The Claimant has issued two claims with identical Particulars with the exception of the Parking Charge issue date.  

Claim 1 xxxxxx which was issued on 11…03…2024  - relates to PCNs issued on 04...06...2023 and 06...12...2022.

Claim 2 yyyyyy which was issued on 13…03…2024 - relates to a PCN issued on the 04...06...2023, relying on the same facts.

4.1      In 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 having involved the same subject matter.”

4.2     In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:

(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;

(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open 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;

(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

4.3      The Claimant filing the first claim and failing to advance the whole case, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact Parking Charges against the Defendant. The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same.  The Defendant invites the court to dismiss the second claim under the grounds of cause of action estoppel.  In the alternative, the Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

The facts known to the Defendant:

5.0      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 the case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fails 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 but denies being the driver.

6.0      The defendant wishes to bring to the court's attention that they solely serve as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have not personally operated the vehicle since assuming keeper status, due to their disability. The vehicle is instead utilized by two authorized family members. Hence, the defendant asserts no liability in this matter.

7.0      Pursuant to POFA section 4, Paragraph 8(2)(e), the keeper is merely "invited" to settle any purported unpaid parking charges, absolving them of any legal obligation to remit funds to the PPC.

8.0      Furthermore, the defendant highlights the presence of another family member residing within the private residential area in question, where the vehicle was legitimately utilized by authorized drivers to visit said family member. The defendant was neither present nor a passenger during the instances leading to the alleged PCNs, nullifying P%C%M UK's purported contractual claims against the defendant as no such agreement was established. Moreover, lacking any consent from the defendant for the vehicle's presence where the PCNs were issued renders P%C%M UK's claims legally void.

9.0      Notably, the vehicle boasts multiple authorized drivers; however, P%C%M UK's Particulars of Claim fails to outline the terms and conditions of the alleged contract or provide evidence identifying the driver during the incidents in question. This inadequacy on the part of P%C%M UK does not implicate the defendant/keeper, absolving them of any liability. Moreover, P%C%M UK's incoherent Particulars of Claim violate CPR 16.4, warranting the dismissal of the claim.

10.0    Given P%C%M UK's history of questionable practices, notably exposed by BBC Watchdog, the defendant views P%C%M UK's claims with skepticism, citing their pattern of deceit and lack of integrity. Consequently, the defendant adamantly refuses to accede to P%C%M UK's demands.

11.0    P%C%M UK's claims lack legal merit and are grounded in a business model characterized by extortionate practices, targeting hardworking individuals and exploiting the disabled. The defendant, reliant on the vehicle for transportation due to their disability, denies P%C%M UK's exaggerated claims of harm or damage, whether intentional or unintentional, viewing them as mere scare tactics to extract undeserved funds.

12.0    The defendant seeks to bring attention to the court regarding the failure of both P%C%M, and B%R%L, the landowner responsible for unit development, to provide adequate parking for disabled Blue Badge (BB) holders. Despite not being the driver of the alleged offences, the defendant, who is disabled, faces significant barriers in accessing the area due to the lack of suitable parking spaces for BB holders. The existence of only one designated non-residential disabled parking space constitutes a clear violation of the London Plan 2021 Policy T6.5, which underscores the imperative for accessible parking provisions within such developments. This glaring deficiency not only impedes the defendant's ability to access the location but also imposes severe limitations on their fundamental right to visit and interact with their family members in the vicinity. With an expansive development area spanning 7.7 hectares and comprising more than 1600 units, the inadequate provision for disabled parking spaces is grossly inadequate. Such disregard for accessibility not only raises concerns of discrimination but also contradicts the claimant's purported affiliation with the disabled charity organization "Disabled Motoring UK." These actions and violations underscore the urgent need for P%C%M, and the landowner to rectify the situation and uphold their obligations to provide adequate parking for disabled individuals.

Then the rest of para 4 from the template defence and onwards.