4 Year Old Claim Form!!!!

D_P_Dance

Now, about a week ago I received a Claim Form from Northampton County Court Business Centre. Groupnexus (or DCB legal, their solicitors) are claiming £561.96.

That seems incredibly high, how on earth will they justify that in court I wonde  Have you read this

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, a VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor,  They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/r  Read this

KeithP

D_P_Dance said:

Now, about a week ago I received a Claim Form from Northampton County Court Business Centre. Groupnexus (or DCB legal, their solicitors) are claiming £561.96.

That seems incredibly high, how on earth will they justify that in court I wonder.  

Although it isn't particularly clear in the opening post, that £561.96 is covering two parking events.

Still too high of course, but not that much different from what we often see.

Coupon-mad

Why this talk from the OP about how long a known non-POFA PCN took?  

4yearoldclaim

I just received a SMS text message from GLADSTONES with the following:

"Due: £340.00 You have not responded to our Pre-Action letter. Please visit !!!!!!/gsl-pay or call 01565 755088 to avoid Court action. Quote Ref: XXXXXX.XXX"

Does this not count as harassment/intimidation?

I have already acknowledged the court case on MoneyClaim online, and am not backing down. Am also genuinely confused as to why Gladstone are texting me, not DCBL solicitors. Also, how did they get my phone number in the first place!

D_P_Dance

Does this not count as harassment/intimidation?

It is highly unlikely that a judge would deem it so imo.

Coupon-mad

4yearoldclaim said:

I just received a SMS text message from GLADSTONES with the following:

"Due: £340.00 You have not responded to our Pre-Action letter. Please visit !!!!!!/gsl-pay or call 01565 755088 to avoid Court action. Quote Ref: XXXXXX.XXX"

Does this not count as harassment/intimidation?

I have already acknowledged the court case on MoneyClaim online, and am not backing down. Am also genuinely confused as to why Gladstone are texting me, not DCBL solicitors. Also, how did they get my phone number in the first place!

This text is about different PCNs, clearly. 

The text is talking about a LBC sent by Gladstones, not a claim sent by DCBLegal.

I suspect Gladstones sent the LBC to an old address so RESPOND and confirm your correct address for service and ask for all letters to be sent to your new address, and for the case to be put on hold while you seek debt advice.

4yearoldclaim

Coupon-mad said:

4yearoldclaim said:

I just received a SMS text message from GLADSTONES with the following:

"Due: £340.00 You have not responded to our Pre-Action letter. Please visit !!!!!!/gsl-pay or call 01565 755088 to avoid Court action. Quote Ref: XXXXXX.XXX"

Does this not count as harassment/intimidation?

I have already acknowledged the court case on MoneyClaim online, and am not backing down. Am also genuinely confused as to why Gladstone are texting me, not DCBL solicitors. Also, how did they get my phone number in the first place!

This text is about different PCNs, clearly. 

The text is talking about a LBC sent by Gladstones, not a claim sent by DCBLegal.

I suspect Gladstones sent the LBC to an old address so RESPOND and confirm your correct address for service and ask for all letters to be sent to your new address, and for the case to be put on hold while you seek debt advice.

The worrying thing is I haven't received any letters! I only assumed this was the same PCN(s) as the amount in question is exactly the same (prior to the claim form letter). 

Coupon-mad

We know you haven't received any letters, same as always happens.  As I said, Gs will have sent it to an old address and all the letters will have gone there, too.  That's why I told you how to respond.

This is normal and so is a 4 year old claim.  We help people with 5 and 6 year old cases here.  

4yearoldclaim

Good morning, 

I have finished adapting the template to my defence. Here is the final draft (minus any corrections/changes).

Any critiques are welcome.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on 21/08/2017 and 28/08/2017 but liability is denied. It is not known who was the driver on 28/08/2017. Both the defendant and his family members shared use of the car and nobody can remember who was driving on that day over four years ago.

3. The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant CP Plus Ltd, trading as Groupnexus for a Total amount of £561.96 (inclusive of £50 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to two separate PCNs that were issued against the Defendant’s vehicle xxxx-xxx over 4 years ago on 21/08/2017 at MOTO Medway East and on 28/08/2017 at ROADCHEF Clacket Lane North.

4. The Defendant was only made aware of these PCNs in early August 2021 after receiving a letter of claim from DCB Legal, dated 26 July 2021. This was the first and only correspondence that the Defendant received relating to these two PCNs. The Defendant has no recollection of receiving a Notice to Keeper or any communication relating to these PCNs prior to August 2021. The Defendant does not recall receiving these letters and would like for the Claimant to provide evidence that the Defendant received them. 

5. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not PoFA compliant and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.

6. Following on from [5] 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 Groupnexus or CP Plus Ltd claim because this parking firm, same as Highview Parking Limited, 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 £461.96. The Defendant has excluded the £50 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

7. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).

Umkomaas

Have you complained to the CEO of MOTO yet?  That's the surest way of killing this off soonest. He's been cancelling CP Plus charges left, right and centre all the way through this year.  No brainer.