DCB Legal Claim Form for CP Plus Ltd (Roadchef motorway services)

Elf2021

D_P_Dance said:

Have you complained to your MP?  

Not yet - but yes I am going to today... also planning to complain to Costa Coffee and McDonalds as retailers at the services!!

Le_Kirk

Elf2021 said:

Le_Kirk said:

You just need to tell the truth - ask yourself what you would answer if the judge askes the question "were you driving?"  Telling an untruth at this point will lead to more than a parking charge!  Posters do successfully defend PCNs as drivers, you just need a couple of good technical/legal points, the best ones being "I did pay", "I did have a permit and it was displayed", "I did not overstay."

thank you - yes I was driving and it must have been the two occasions I fell asleep, not something I usually do so must have been exhausted.. the services were coming South so will have been late afternoon and the dates are both Friday. I wouldn't have over stayed if I hadn't fallen asleep  (although don't know how long I overstayed until they send me the PCN's, but it can't have been long!) - I honestly didn't notice the signage as at the time I was always pulling in as the light was failing and pretty sure it was raining - I will have grabbed a coffee and something to eat and used the facilities to try and wake myself up.. I only know that those dates were the month I was informed my office was closing and I was losing my job - so much more stressed than usual with Christmas only a few weeks away!  I have looked since and yes there is signage - but it just never occurred to me that a motorway services had a restriction on time allowed to stay there!

Somewhere in that paragraph is your defence.  Government advice, road safety, not wishing to harm other drivers etc.

Elf2021

Le_Kirk said:

Elf2021 said:

Le_Kirk said:

You just need to tell the truth - ask yourself what you would answer if the judge askes the question "were you driving?"  Telling an untruth at this point will lead to more than a parking charge!  Posters do successfully defend PCNs as drivers, you just need a couple of good technical/legal points, the best ones being "I did pay", "I did have a permit and it was displayed", "I did not overstay."

thank you - yes I was driving and it must have been the two occasions I fell asleep, not something I usually do so must have been exhausted.. the services were coming South so will have been late afternoon and the dates are both Friday. I wouldn't have over stayed if I hadn't fallen asleep  (although don't know how long I overstayed until they send me the PCN's, but it can't have been long!) - I honestly didn't notice the signage as at the time I was always pulling in as the light was failing and pretty sure it was raining - I will have grabbed a coffee and something to eat and used the facilities to try and wake myself up.. I only know that those dates were the month I was informed my office was closing and I was losing my job - so much more stressed than usual with Christmas only a few weeks away!  I have looked since and yes there is signage - but it just never occurred to me that a motorway services had a restriction on time allowed to stay there!

Somewhere in that paragraph is your defence.  Government advice, road safety, not wishing to harm other drivers etc.

thank you - will be working on it tonight and will post on here to get feedback - also will let you all know what response I get back from the lovely Tracey

Coupon-mad

hmmm so this is CP PLUS so you certainly DO NOT say who was driving at this stage, you just copy another CP PLUS defence, or a Highview one. 

there have been shedloads since April, already written and easy to copy.

Redx

As above , keeper and liability is denied  let them stew on driver details , see how far they will go , make them put their money where their mouth is

If asked in a court hearing , you can answer appropriately and truthfully at that time

The driver saw no signs , the driver was tired and following government road safety advice

Google Sir Nicholas Bowen QC and Parking Eye , he defended and won !! Lol. 😁😁😁

beamerguy

SAVE LIVES TAKE A BREAK

MOTORWAY SERVICES ........ "Save lives take a break"
Interesting for those who are currently having problems

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6265050/beavis-insight-motorway-services-insight-and-claims-lost-in-court-and-n-ireland

Elf2021

ok - this has taken me far too long as I really struggled with what to say.. so as not to incriminate myself as the driver..
This is my attempt at section 2 and 3 of the defense using others from the forum that I found, plus my own additional part
Thoughts would be greatly appreciated -this was mostly from a defense that someone else submitted with my changes in bold, and part 2 is obviously the particulars of my claim. Bit concerned I have mixed up proof of driver and knowing what the driver did..

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 £460.84 (inclusive of £50 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 two years ago on the 1st November 2019 and the 29th November 2019 at Roadchef Northampton South.

 3a) It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

 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. The driver saw no signs and following government road safety advice stopped to rest to protect other road users from accident by falling asleep parked instead of falling asleep at the wheel due to tiredness.

3c) 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.

3d). 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. The Particulars of claim (POC) also states that the driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not, but the claimant has failed to provide evidence of this agreement.

3e). Following on from [c] & [d], 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 £360.84. 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 £50 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defense point. 

Elf2021

Do I leave all the other points in the defense exactly as they are?

Coupon-mad

Yes.

Get rid of 3b altogether and remove the whole bold section you added to 3D because that’s not a point.  They say ‘the driver agreed’ due to the conduct of parking. This is standard stuff for parking cases.

It doesn’t mean the driver actually ‘agreed’!  Drives me mad when people focus on that nonsense point like it means something.  Sorry but we say this all the time.

You have a typo: ‘defence point’ not ‘defense’.

Elf2021

Coupon-mad said:

Yes.

Get rid of 3b altogether and remove the whole bold section you added to 3D because that’s not a point.  They say ‘the driver agreed’ due to the conduct of parking. This is standard stuff for parking cases.

It doesn’t mean the driver actually ‘agreed’!  Drives me mad when people focus on that nonsense point like it means something.  Sorry but we say this all the time.

You have a typo: ‘defence point’ not ‘defense’.

thank you - is this better?

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 £460.84 (inclusive of £50 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 two years ago on the 1st November 2019 and the 29th November 2019 at Roadchef Northampton South.

3a) It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

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 £360.84. 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 £50 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point.