DCB Legal for CP Plus re Road Chef / Moto PCNs – Advice on defence against Claim

D_P_Dance

I am just panicking a bit with the deadline of a few days away, of dropping an almighty clanger.

This is a small claims court, judges do not expect Rumpole.

larry63

Update

Thanks for all of the pointers

Just received an email reply from Moto Services (Paul Comer) advising

“As a gesture of goodwill I will speak to the car park management company this morning to arrange for the PCN to be cancelled .....
You should recieve confirmation of the cancellation from CP Plus within the next 10 days.”

 

Assuming this actually happens, should i make reference to this in my defence, assume yes.  Does this mean the claim has to start again by DCB Legal as there is now only one PCN not the two?

Any thoughts / experience of this?

 

Thanks

Redx

Just add a brief paragraph in 3 stating that the landowner Moto has told the claimant to cancel the invoice forthwith , meaning that the claimant has no landowner authority to pursue the Moto claim , or something similar

The claimant can discontinue part of the claim , so do not make any assumptions , other than that it's going ahead on the current claim , until it's been discontinued or amended

So yet again , leave the questions until after next Monday , getting on with paragraphs 2 & 3 , even if you have 5 or 6 in total , your questions are detracting from the main event , getting the 2 paragraphs adapted until good to go , nothing is more important at this time, not when your deadline is 3 days away !!

Post your new proposed draft below , for critique

larry63

Redrafted defence for consideration after latest events

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. There were multiple possible drivers on these otherwise unremarkable dates, that relate to nearly six and five years ago respectively. The Defendant cannot recall who the driver was.

 

3a). The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the CP Plus Ltd T/A Groupnexus for a Total amount of £563.01 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research, the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to two PCNs  that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXX nearly six years ago on the 16th July 2015 at Roadchef Killington Lake, and nearly five years ago on 7th of December 2016.

3b)  The driver is accused to have entered a contract with the Claimant and in turn, overstayed their time “permitted” within a free of charge carpark. In addition to this, the driver has not been identified by the Claimant and although there is a provision in law under Schedule 4 of  The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA2012) to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper, the Claimant has made little to no effort to comply with the requirements of this act. Most notably, they failed to deliver any notice within the Notice to Keeper that the keeper would become liable. (POFA2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 9, subparagraph 2f). As such, the Defendant has no liability in law.

3c). In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle. 

3d). Following on from [b] & [c], where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in PoFA, Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know (as the Claimant undoubtedly does) that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'.  This can never be the case with a CP Plus Ltd T/A Groupnexus  as they have never used the POFA 2012 wording, of their own volition.  Not only does the POC include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claims.  So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it cannot have been over £100. Which then leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £478.01. Defendant has excluded the £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

3e) The defendant has received written communication on the 21st of May 2021, from Paul Comer, Head of Commercial Moto Hospitality Limited, advising the defendant that they have arranged for the PCN to be immediately cancelled, re 07/12/2016 200000xxxx, meaning that the claimant has no landowner authority to pursue the Moto claim.

Umkomaas

meaning that the claimant has no landowner authority to pursue the Moto claim.

..... meaning the claimant has no legitimate interest in pursuing this claim.

woodpecker44

As Redx says they will only discontinue part of the claim for now so you should carry on until the whole claim has been discontinued.
You will get a letter though from DCBLegal (not CP Plus) with a notice of discontinuance attached. There are two boxes on it -  'discontinues all of this claim' or 'discontinues part of the claim' and they will have ticked the 'discontinues part of the claim' box relating to the Moto PCN.
I would be surprised if Roadchef don't cancel the other one as well. They seem to be quite helpful in this although they take a bit longer to do it!

beamerguy

“As a gesture of goodwill I will speak to the car park management company this morning to arrange for the PCN to be cancelled .....
You should recieve confirmation of the cancellation from CP Plus within the next 10 days.”

Always makes be laugh .... "As a gesture of goodwill" ..... they should be apologising to their retailers who pay expensive rent and expect a good flow of customers.
MOTO are getting a bad name for employing parking cowboys and they should kick out CP Plus which will solve their problem ... and it is their problem

NO service station normally in the middle of nowhere needs Parking Cowboys

1505grandad

Para 3d  -  "...........how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £478.01. Defendant has excluded the £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs...."

Should that be £35?

D_P_Dance

As a gesture if goodwiil I am linking to one I wrote earlier,

https://www.grumpieroldmen.co.uk/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=33848&hilit=a+gesture+of+goodwill&start=0

Le_Kirk

3b)  The driver is accused to have entered a contract with the Claimant and in turn, overstayed their time “permitted” within a free of charge carpark. In addition to this, the driver has not been identified by the Claimant and although there is 

Maybe: -

3b)  The driver is accused alleged to have entered a contract with the Claimant and in turn, overstayed their time “permitted” within a free of charge carpark. In addition to this, the driver has not been identified by the Claimant and although there is ..........

Which then leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £478.01.

You do not ask questions in a defence; maybe you state: -

Which then leads to the question, how does The Claimant is put to strict proof of how arrive at the Amount Claimed for came to a Total of £478.01.