Received POC from BWLegal on behalf of UK CPM Ltd

[Barbudaprince]

Thanks much. What wording should I use to tell ask the court to consider the related live proceedings and whether this second claim should be stayed, listed with or after the existing claim, or otherwise case-managed to avoid duplicated proceedings and inconsistent findings.

[b789]

You want it to be neutral and invite case management rather than tell the court what to do. Something like this works well:

The Defendant respectfully draws the Court's attention to related live proceedings between the same parties arising from the same location and substantially the same factual and legal issues. The Defendant invites the Court to consider whether this claim should be stayed, consolidated, listed together with, or listed after the existing proceedings, or otherwise case-managed as the Court considers appropriate, to avoid duplicated proceedings, inconsistent findings, unnecessary costs, and potential abuse through the fragmentation of claims.

That leaves all case management options open to the judge while subtly signalling the Henderson v Henderson/cause of action estoppel issue without over-arguing it on the DQ.

[Barbudaprince]

Thanks very much. Done just added that text into the email.

[Barbudaprince]

I have my mediation appointment later, should I stick to the following gathered from another case:

"Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:

• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.

Please relay that back to me before we continue.”

After the mediator calls back...

If identified and authority confirmed:

“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”

If no/unclear authority:

“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”

[b789]

Yes. It will be over in a few minutes.

If they ask you about your defence, just tell the mediator that the claimant has a copy of it and you do not accept any liability, hence the offer of £0.

[Barbudaprince]

Hi yes, was a waste of time. Rosana the mediator called.

They said they're pursuing keeper liability 
Said the timestamp for the vehicle was irrelevant as they were pursuing for not displaying a valid permit.
Offered £199.

Rosanna asked me my position, I asked her to confirm the claimant's representative details as guided above. She said they didn't have to identify themselves, I said doesn't matter please ask them. They didn't identify themselves but did say they had written authority from claimant. I told them liability is denied and my offer is £0 as guided. They then offered £150 which I declined.

She said she would Mark the case not settled and that's the court would be in contact with a hearing date.

[Barbudaprince]

Hello evening.

Just received this letter.

I'm assuming this means Be legal haven't filed a compliant PoC as yet and is quite positive news. 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...TrfvK1K-1N

[b789]

@Barbudaprince, yes, this is very positive news.

District Judge Jenkins has effectively agreed with our criticism of BW Legal's inadequately pleaded Particulars of Claim. The Judge has ordered UKCPM to file and serve amended Particulars complying with CPR 16.4 and paragraph 7 of PD16 by 4pm on 28 October 2026, failing which the claim will be automatically struck out without further order.

That is a significant development. The court has recognised that the original Particulars were insufficient and has imposed a strict deadline for UKCPM to put matters right.

However, it does not mean BW Legal has already failed to comply. They still have until 28 October to file the amended Particulars with the court and serve them on you. If they fail to comply with the unless order, the claim is struck out automatically, subject to any subsequent relief granted by the court.

If they do serve amended Particulars, you have permission to file and serve an amended defence within 14 days of receiving them. We can then examine whether they have genuinely complied with the order and whether the additional particulars expose further weaknesses in their case.

For now, please confirm which claim number appears on this order, as I believe that there are two UKCPM claims involving you. We need to ensure we are dealing with the correct proceedings.

Otherwise, there is nothing to submit immediately. Keep the order safe and await BW Legal's response. The important date is now 28 October 2026.

[Barbudaprince]

That's great.

It would be good if the Judge actually said why it isn't compliant?

Could the judge have referred to the enforcement boundary issue on my other case and made the decision based on that? Can they review cases simultaneously in that way?

This case starts N***** the other case was M******. The other case is now finished and have paid the value required from that court order to BWLegal.

[b789]

@Barbudaprince, I've now revisited your earlier thread (3 private parking tickets being pursued for all 3 and had a ccj claim made) concerning the three UKCPM PCNs and compared it with this claim. There are some potentially important implications arising from the fact that the earlier proceedings have now concluded.

First, regarding your question about whether District Judge Jenkins considered the earlier claim when making the recent order, there is no evidence that this happened and is very unlikely at this stage anyway. The order specifically concerns BW Legal's failure to plead its contractual case adequately under CPR 16.4 and paragraph 7 of Practice Direction 16. That is consistent with the defective Particulars of Claim we challenged in the defence.

The Judge has given UKCPM until 4pm on 28 October 2026 to file and serve compliant amended Particulars, failing which the claim will be struck out without further order. Given BW Legal's usual approach to these claims, I would expect them to comply rather than allow the claim to be struck out, although that remains to be seen.

The more interesting development is the outcome of your earlier claim.

You have confirmed that the earlier proceedings have concluded and that you have paid the amount ordered by the court. However, I need to establish precisely what the Judge decided concerning each of those three PCNs.

My understanding is that UKCPM succeeded on one PCN, but the other two were dismissed because the vehicles were parked outside UKCPM's authorised enforcement boundary. If that is correct, it could have considerable significance for this claim.

There is an important legal distinction between cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel. The former is unlikely to apply directly because this claim concerns a different PCN, a different vehicle and a separate alleged parking event. However, issue estoppel may become relevant if the earlier Judge made a definitive finding concerning UKCPM's authority to enforce parking restrictions over a particular part of Wheatstone House.

If the vehicle involved in this claim was parked within the same area that the earlier Judge determined was outside UKCPM's enforcement boundary, there may be grounds to argue that UKCPM cannot simply relitigate that previously determined issue. Whether that argument is available depends on the precise findings made by the Judge, rather than simply the outcome of the earlier claim.

There is also the separate issue of UKCPM pursuing multiple claims against the same defendant at the same residential location under the same parking regime. UKCPM already knew about this March 2025 PCN when it commenced the earlier proceedings in July 2025, yet chose to issue another claim separately. That raises a potential argument concerning unreasonable claim-splitting and abuse of process under the principles established in Henderson v Henderson. It is not automatically an abuse, but it is a point worth preserving.

What I now need from you is the final judgment or court order from the earlier claim, together with any written reasons given by the Judge. If the reasons were delivered orally and are not recorded in the order, please explain as accurately as possible what the Judge said about UKCPM's enforcement boundary and why two of the PCNs were dismissed.

I also need to establish whether the vehicle involved in this March 2025 PCN was parked in the same area as either of the two PCNs dismissed in the earlier proceedings. That comparison could be particularly important.

For now, there is no need to submit anything further to the court. We should first see whether BW Legal complies with the unless order by 28 October.

If amended Particulars arrive, please post them here as soon as possible. We can then examine their pleaded case against the tenancy agreement, signage, incorrect postcode, PoFA requirements, the earlier judgment and UKCPM's actual enforcement authority. We can also assess whether issue estoppel or unreasonable claim-splitting should form part of the amended defence.

The court has expressly permitted you to file and serve an amended defence within 14 days of being served with the amended Particulars, so we will have an opportunity to address these matters properly.

The existing unless order is already a favourable development. The earlier judgment may provide further ammunition, but I want to see exactly what was decided before relying on it.