10-18-2026, 10:52 AM
@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.
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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
