05-05-2026, 09:27 AM
@Barbudaprince, thanks. The fact that this claim involves a different vehicle changes the “second claim” point, but it does not remove it completely.
It means we should not say this is the same defendant, same vehicle, same location and same parking regime. That would be inaccurate.
The more careful point is that UKCPM is pursuing a second live claim against the same defendant at the same residential location, under the same parking scheme and same alleged contractual regime. The fact that the vehicle is different weakens the argument slightly, because each PCN relates to a different vehicle and a different alleged contravention. However, UKCPM still knew, or ought to have known, about this March 2025 PCN before issuing the earlier July 2025 claim. If both claims involve the same defendant, same site, same parking scheme, same signage, same landowner authority, same postcode issue, same PoFA issues and same added recovery costs, there is still a legitimate point about fragmented litigation and duplicated proceedings.
So I would not call it cause of action estoppel. The first claim has not been decided, and the vehicles are different. The better point is unreasonable and oppressive claim-splitting/inefficient duplicated litigation. It is still worth including, but not as the lead defence point unless space permits. The court may simply treat the PCNs as separate causes of action, but it is still relevant conduct because UKCPM chose to issue multiple claims against the same tenant at the same residential site when the issues overlap heavily.
On the contravention reason, that is potentially useful. UKCPM’s stated reason for this PCN is “Not Displaying a Valid Permit”. That is the allegation they have chosen. If the vehicle was not parked in a marked bay, then UKCPM may later try to argue that the real problem was that it was not parked in a bay or was parked somewhere unauthorised. But that is not what the PCN says. They should not be allowed to shift the basis of the allegation later.
The point is even stronger if, in the earlier claim, one vehicle was parked in a bay but was still issued a PCN for the same “not displaying a permit” reason. That suggests their enforcement is not genuinely about whether the vehicle was in a bay or causing obstruction. It appears to be a blanket permit-display allegation. That helps keep the focus on whether UKCPM can prove that a valid permit-display term was properly incorporated, whether the driver was given the required consideration period, whether the signage applied to the place where the vehicle was positioned, and whether UKCPM can pursue the registered keeper under PoFA.
If you can, please provide photos showing where this vehicle was parked in relation to the signs, the hard standing, dropped kerb, access road, roadway, footpath, walkways and any marked bays. Those photos will be important. We need to be able to show whether the vehicle was on an access road/roadway, whether it was obstructing anything, whether there were signs visible from that position, and whether the area looked like land where parking was permitted or at least tolerated under the residential arrangements.
For now, the defence summary will be as follows:
I will be travelling from the 9th May and so will try and get your defence prepared before then. If not, there is still no rush as you have submitted an AoS (I presume) which gives you until 4pm Wednesday 20 May to submit your defence.
It means we should not say this is the same defendant, same vehicle, same location and same parking regime. That would be inaccurate.
The more careful point is that UKCPM is pursuing a second live claim against the same defendant at the same residential location, under the same parking scheme and same alleged contractual regime. The fact that the vehicle is different weakens the argument slightly, because each PCN relates to a different vehicle and a different alleged contravention. However, UKCPM still knew, or ought to have known, about this March 2025 PCN before issuing the earlier July 2025 claim. If both claims involve the same defendant, same site, same parking scheme, same signage, same landowner authority, same postcode issue, same PoFA issues and same added recovery costs, there is still a legitimate point about fragmented litigation and duplicated proceedings.
So I would not call it cause of action estoppel. The first claim has not been decided, and the vehicles are different. The better point is unreasonable and oppressive claim-splitting/inefficient duplicated litigation. It is still worth including, but not as the lead defence point unless space permits. The court may simply treat the PCNs as separate causes of action, but it is still relevant conduct because UKCPM chose to issue multiple claims against the same tenant at the same residential site when the issues overlap heavily.
On the contravention reason, that is potentially useful. UKCPM’s stated reason for this PCN is “Not Displaying a Valid Permit”. That is the allegation they have chosen. If the vehicle was not parked in a marked bay, then UKCPM may later try to argue that the real problem was that it was not parked in a bay or was parked somewhere unauthorised. But that is not what the PCN says. They should not be allowed to shift the basis of the allegation later.
The point is even stronger if, in the earlier claim, one vehicle was parked in a bay but was still issued a PCN for the same “not displaying a permit” reason. That suggests their enforcement is not genuinely about whether the vehicle was in a bay or causing obstruction. It appears to be a blanket permit-display allegation. That helps keep the focus on whether UKCPM can prove that a valid permit-display term was properly incorporated, whether the driver was given the required consideration period, whether the signage applied to the place where the vehicle was positioned, and whether UKCPM can pursue the registered keeper under PoFA.
If you can, please provide photos showing where this vehicle was parked in relation to the signs, the hard standing, dropped kerb, access road, roadway, footpath, walkways and any marked bays. Those photos will be important. We need to be able to show whether the vehicle was on an access road/roadway, whether it was obstructing anything, whether there were signs visible from that position, and whether the area looked like land where parking was permitted or at least tolerated under the residential arrangements.
For now, the defence summary will be as follows:
- This is not a same-vehicle second claim, so that point must be toned down.
- It remains a second live UKCPM claim against the same defendant at the same residential location under the same parking scheme.
- The PCN allegation remains “Not Displaying a Valid Permit”, so UKCPM should be held to that allegation and not allowed to morph the case into a different allegation about bay parking or obstruction.
- The tenancy clause and signage remain relevant, but UKCPM must still prove the contractual basis, signage visibility, authority, PoFA compliance and keeper liability.
- The wrong postcode/inadequate location point remains unchanged and is still important.
- The lack of a specified period of parking and lack of evidence of the mandatory consideration period remain important.
- The added sum point remains unchanged.
- The poor Particulars of Claim point remains unchanged.
I will be travelling from the 9th May and so will try and get your defence prepared before then. If not, there is still no rush as you have submitted an AoS (I presume) which gives you until 4pm Wednesday 20 May to submit your defence.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
