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

Johnersh

Or, if you're paid by the word....
The claimant has failed to provide a schedule of loss or breakdown and/or to adequately particularise the sums claimed in the amount of z. The claimant is put to proof. The defendant will respond to each individual loss claimed upon clarification of the same. 

Coupon-mad

They haven't refused it, they've sent the form that they send everyone, that we tell people to refuse to use.  They are doing this to try to get the driver's name, sneakily off the back of the SAR.  The BPA called this 'wrong on so many levels' when I mentioned this sharp practice by a different PPC, in 2020.

This has been discussed on ALL other Group Nexus threads and I thought I even warned you this is what they'd do and not to fall for it, and just insist on your SAR as long as you've provided enough ID for them to know it's you.

Defence looks fine and you will be emailing it so you have till Monday. Swap these two around for a better flow:

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.

Redx

they are doing this with every request, so people have reiterated their requests , with 3 or 4 proofs of ID , but minus details like DOB , driving licence , passport , no photo ID etc , so using recent redacted utility bills , V5C letters , council tax bills , HMRC  letters , DWP letters etc , with suitable redactions of course, but leaving name , address and date showing , any court claim from the CCBC in Northampton should be item 1 in the SAR , a couple of utility bills etc

email back with copies of a few of those and tell them they have enough to process it and a complaint will be made to the ICO if they do not comply , keep doing it until they do , or 40 days has elapsed or more and complain to the ICO

but do not miss your defence deadline etc, procedures still go ahead until the reverse is true

ps:- if you had read a dozen C P PLUS and HIGHVIEW threads recently you would have been prepared for this knock back, or added in more proof to avoid it

Johnersh

They're entitled to verify that they are providing personal data to the correct individual.

That may mean establishing you are the keeper of a vehicle or a proof of address.

It Is NOT required
1. To furnish photo ID (they have literally no idea what you look like and that is to require more sensitive data than they supply)
2. For you to make a request in writing (at all) but it helps to keep a record
3. To decline a request without providing reasons
4. To decline a request for not using their form
5. To sign a declaration that restricts the publication of documents provided to you which are (as a matter of fact) your personal data

The GDPR is not disclosure for litigation purposes. If your data (or registration) is not held within the p&d logs, then you aren't getting the log.

Most obviously you are writing from an address they have already corresponded with. Neither passport nor drivers licence are requirements of being a vehicle keeper, so certainly can't be mandated for a request by a keeper. 

larry63

Send a reply to group nexus as follows.  Will wait to see their response.

Dear Groupnexus

Please find attached 4 items of proof of myself as the registered keeper of XXXX, in addition to the fact that i live at the address as quoted in the CCBC Claim No XXXXX, that has quoted you as the claimant and me as the Defendant as the registered keeper.

As you have advised and i have accepted there is no need to complete your form.

My original submission was enough for you to process my SAR request.  The additional information now provided puts this beyond any reasonable doubt.

As my original submission adhered to your website requirements as stated for the request of the SAR, then i take the 30 day compliance requirement to start from the 18th of May.

A complaint will be submitted to the ICO if you do not now comply.  I will also make it known of your delaying tactics and none compliance to my MP, Moto and Roadchef, in addition to feedback on the likes of websites such as trust pilot if you do not comply within the 30 day requirements of my original complaint request of the 18th of May.

Regards

larry63

Updated Defence after all the great feedback to date. Any fruterh thoughts? Thanks

2. 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 were issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXX nearly six years ago on the 16th July 2015 at Roadchef Killington Lake, and MOTO Donington Park nearly five years ago on 7th of December 2016.

 

3a)       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.

 

3b) The driver is 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 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 the 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 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. The claimant has failed to provide a schedule of loss or breakdown and/or to adequately particularise the sums claimed in the amount of £478.01. The claimant is put to strict proof and the defendant will respond to each individual loss claimed upon clarification of the same.  Defendant has excluded the £35 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 xxxx, meaning the claimant has no legitimate interest in pursuing this element of the claim or landowner authority to pursue.

larry63

Hi All

Still communicating to Roadchef, to try and get the second PCN cancelled.

Got a reply from them today by email, which contains information they have recieved from Groupnexus.

The information they have recvieved from Groupnexus relates to their PCN, and all of the information and action taken that relates to the PCN that was issued by Moto.   Groupnexus have provided Roadchef the PCN number, and dates of every bit of supposed communication from all of the groupnexus agents in relation to the Moto PCN allegedly communicated to me, except the fact that the Moto PCN has actually been withdrawn.

Indeed the wording of the email from Roadchef seems to indicate their director thinks both the PCNs relate to Roadchef.

Is this a breach of GDPR by Groupnexus,  am i entitled to take any action against them for providing this information to Roadchef, and agaisnt Roadchef for using this information in a communication to me.  I have never mentioned this PCN to Roadhef in any communication.

How can i use this as evidence and submit it in the case for the PCN still being pursued after recieivng the N279 in relation to the Moto PCN only.  My defence was already submitted by the required date on the 24th of May.

Note the N279 does not disclose the value of the part of claim discontinued.... so does that mean they are still claiming the full amount, but under just once PCN?

Thanks all.

Coupon-mad

The information they have recvieved from Groupnexus relates to their PCN, and all of the information and action taken that relates to the PCN that was issued by Moto.   Groupnexus have provided Roadchef the PCN number, and dates of every bit of supposed communication from all of the groupnexus agents in relation to the Moto PCN allegedly communicated to me, except the fact that the Moto PCN has actually been withdrawn.

Indeed the wording of the email from Roadchef seems to indicate their director thinks both the PCNs relate to Roadchef.
Is this a breach of GDPR by Groupnexus,  

Yes, I think so.  It's also disingenuous. 

Your priority is to reply to Roadchef and tell them:
- the other PCN referred to has nothing to do with Roadchef and you are shocked that Group Nexus is blithely sharing data that is irrelevant and relates to other landowners
- the other PCN has been cancelled by MOTO who were shocked about the issue and are cancelling all known PCNs when people complain, including at court stage
- perhaps Roadchef should ask themselves why they are employing a contractor who is so loose with data sharing and failed to tell them the other PCN wasn't a Roadchef one and that it was cancelled by MOTO anyway.  Are Roadchef happy to contract with such an aggressively litigious firm, who have shared data that is nothing to do with Roadchef, to try to paint the registered keeper as some sort of serial rogue parker.  This despite the fact it could have ben any driver of that car (not the keeper) and Group Nexus can't even hold registered keepers liable because of their choice not to use the constraints of the applicable law (and they haven't told Roadchef that, either...).

larry63

Hi Mad,
Yes sent a stinging reponse to Roadchef director detailing all that you said.  Also asking for the email address to send a SAR request, an dthat she should not destroy or alter any emails about me or the PCN, as i want these as evidence of breaches by Groupnexus.

Do i include all this i the witness statement?

Coupon-mad

Yes, I would but I think Roadchef will cancel it if you keep being a thorn in their side.