PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Multiple PCNs for parking in flat car park
HenryHippo
post Sun, 2 Jul 2017 - 19:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,917



At the end of 2016 the block of flats I live in introduced parking permits and PCNs.

I didn't actually get a permit through the post, but most people did in the block. Consequently the car I own which was parked in the car park had 7 PCNs within a 4 week period and the total invoice is £1,160

I ignored the letters that came in the post, but now they have sent me the attached letters for a not insubstantial amount

Does the fact that I didn't get a permit through the post before they enforced the tickets count as a defence? Eventually they sent me one by recorded delivery at which point I had had several tickets.

Quite miffed to be PCNd in my own home.








This post has been edited by HenryHippo: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 - 19:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
19 Pages V  « < 17 18 19  
Start new topic
Replies (360 - 364)
Advertisement
post Sun, 2 Jul 2017 - 19:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
henrik777
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 22:58
Post #361


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,620
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 21:56) *
OK, in an effort to settle this matter peacefully, I would add the following comments.

In Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Limited [2013] UKSC 46, the Supreme Court revisited the doctrine of Res Judicata and identified the six principles which make up the doctrine to be as follows:-

1. A party is prevented from bringing subsequent proceedings to challenge an outcome that has already been decided (cause of action estoppel)

2. If a claimant succeeds in the first action and does not appeal the outcome, he may not bring a subsequent action on the same cause of action (i.e. to recover further damages)

3. The doctrine of merger treats a cause of action as having been extinguished once judgment has been provided and accordingly the Claimant’s only right is the judgment itself

4. A party may not bring subsequent proceedings on an issue that has already been determined (issue estoppel)

5. A party may not bring subsequent proceedings which should and could have been dealt with in earlier proceedings (the ‘Henderson v Henderson’ principle)

6. There is a general procedural rule against abusive proceedings

Literally, the term “res judicata” means “a matter judged”. Once, a matter has been judged, i.e. the issues have been settled, the doctrine of Res Judicata applies forever unless and until, for example, there is a change in the law or a change in the positions of the parties.

What henrik777 said was “Res Judicata would potentially cover any similar events that they should have been aware of at the time of filing a claim. Anything afterwards would not be covered.”.

So, henrik777’s second sentence does not accord with the six principles identified by the Supreme Court.



So, in your view, after a company has issued a claim and been through the system, a company would be barred by way of Res Judicata from going back to court for an incident which occurred afterwards ?

Can you explain which of the 6 points covers this please ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 23:03
Post #362


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 549
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



ostell
There has not been a claim, just a threat of court action.

henrik777
Try reading and understanding the principles for yourself. They are fairly self-explanatory. The wording is not mine.


This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 23:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 08:45
Post #363


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,876
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Not a helpful response there Eli...however I suggest flamepit for further discussion.

No counterclaim here, just a threat of further cction which has now ended. Possibility of a claim for misuse of data etc is in the offing though?

I would now require them to confrm they have ceased processing your data, as they no longer have any cause to continue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HenryHippo
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 11:21
Post #364


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,917



QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 22:38) *
I lost track of what was happening. Is there a counterclaim active on this?


Understandable smile.gif

I will write this post for the casual reader

Dec 2016: UKPC stick multiple tickets on Car A)

Jan 2017: A few tickets on Car B)

Summer 2017: Claim issued against me for Car A). Counterclaim issued against UKPC

Summer 2017: A few tickets on Car C). Car A) parked outside a bay once and gets PCN

Nov 2017: Original case date, last minute postponment to March 2018

March 2018: Judge dismisses UKPC case and awards me £500 damages

June 2018: UKPC go after Car B). I send them an email which makes them back off

July 2018: UKPC go after Car A) for being outside a bay once. I send them an email which makes them back off


Presumably they will go after Car C) next biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by HenryHippo: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 11:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 11:54
Post #365


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,503
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Thanks Henry, all is clear now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

19 Pages V  « < 17 18 19
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 20th July 2018 - 16:40
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.