4 Year Old Claim Form!!!!

4yearoldclaim

Umkomaas said:

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. 

Ha! That was the first thing I did when I received the letter of claim back in August. Unfortunately, I was sent back a big FU from Paul Comer (Head of Commercial) after Ken McMeikan (Chief Executive) palmed me off to him by cc'ing him in. 

Let me name and shame them because this is the response I received after explaining I was falling asleep behind the wheel and slept (at night, when the site was deserted) for a few hours in their parking. 

Dear Mr XXX

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the DCB Legal letters you have received.

I am sorry you received two PCN’s from your Moto visits but we do operate a free 2 hour parking limit, allowing individuals to rest and then parking charges apply. Following the free 2 hour period, if a parking payment is not received then a PCN is issued.

There is signage throughout our car parks highlighting the free 2 hour limit, what the parking charges are after the free timeframe, where to pay and also the terms and conditions.

I appreciate you contacting us directly, however CP Plus/Group Nexus are responsible for managing parking at Moto locations which includes PCN queries and appeals.

Due to GDPR we do not have access to their data, but would like to assure you that they are expected to adhere to the British Parking Association Code of Practice, and that they obtain keeper details from the DVLA in real time, to obtain the registered owner address which they use for their PCN correspondence, except where the vehicle was loaned by a hire company, in which case, they issue the PCN to them, and then re-issue to the driver once the hire company advise the details.

I am therefore sorry that we are unable to assist with this matter other than ask DCB Legal to contact you to discuss your concerns directly. If this is something you would like us to do please let me know and I will get this arranged. Alternatively I would suggest that you use the contact details provided on the latest documentation you have received.

Yours sincerely,

Paul

Total waste of time if you ask me.

Umkomaas

If this is something you would like us to do please let me know and I will get this arranged. 

Well, if the gloves are off:

'As I now have a live court case against me, I would like to call you as a witness for cross-examination about the arrangements you have in place with CP Plus and which allows them to sue your customers. Could you please provide me with a list of dates when you would be unavailable to appear, so that I can request the court to avoid those for the trial.'

It's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but see if that gets his attention. 

It's clear to me that the letter he sent you is one drafted by CP Plus, and has perhaps now become a standard template fob-off. 

Coupon-mad

It looks like you are not denying being the driver on the first occasion? In which case, you haven't offered any defence to that one at all yet. The POFA is irrelevant to a driver.

If you are admitting to driving for the first PCN, then say so and briefly what happened, e.g. no signs were prominent or seen, etc.

4yearoldclaim

Coupon-mad said:

It looks like you are not denying being the driver on the first occasion? In which case, you haven't offered any defence to that one at all yet. The POFA is irrelevant to a driver.

If you are admitting to driving for the first PCN, then say so and briefly what happened, e.g. no signs were prominent or seen, etc.

The trouble is this was all so long ago. Now that I really think about it, I cannot be 100% certain or sure that I was the driver in both instances. 

Sure, I DO remember pulling over and sleeping for a couple of hours at a service station a few years ago. Do I have a concrete recollection of which motorway service it was, no. Do I have a concrete recollection of which date/time this was? No. Can I be certain this was me driving the vehicle at the time? No as other family members have/had access to my vehicle at the time. 

I will update my defence accordingly to reflect the facts known and then repost for final critique. 

Wishing everyone on the forum a merry couple of days with loved ones (hopefully if you're able to). Thanks for all the help @Coupon-mad

4yearoldclaim

Updated defence ready for filing - If anybody could take a quick glance over before I submit my defence that would be greatly appreciated. 

Many thanks to everyone who has commented + given insight to help us fight off these cruel predatory parking companies.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied and any breach of terms is also denied. The identity of the driver(s) at the material time is unknown to the Defendant, who was not the only insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on two occasions, across two days over 4 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 XXX 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 [4] 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.

Redx

In 4) , the claimant does not have to prove that the defendant received the letters !

The claimant is under strict proof that they posted them to the correct name and address listed on the DVLA database at the time and within any applicable timescales or laws ! If they did , the letters are deemed to have arrived 2 days later

So it is that aspect that they need to prove , issue , not receipt !

4yearoldclaim

Redx said:

In 4) , the claimant does not have to prove that the defendant received the letters !

The claimant is under strict proof that they posted them to the correct name and address listed on the DVLA database at the time and within any applicable timescales or laws ! If they did , the letters are deemed to have arrived 2 days later

So it is that aspect that they need to prove , issue , not receipt !

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 issued them. Both the Claim Form and Letter of Claim received by the Defendant arrived at the correct address, thus demonstrating the DVLA holds the correct contact information for the Defendant.



Changed from asking evidence of delivery to evidence of issue re notice to keeper/other comms before letter of claim/claim form.

Redx

It's the claimant that issued them , not the defendant ! So , that they issued them !

The correct address claim form issued is probably because a trace was done prior to the court claim at LoC stage , nothing to do with whether or not the DVLA had the correct address at this moment in time. The claimant is not allowed to check the DVLA database more than once per PCN , certainly not years later

Stop making assumptions , the PCN should have been issued years ago to the DVLA database information , nothing to do with issuing a court claim years later !  Court claim action depends on ensuring that the name and address are correct when the letter of claim and the subsequent claim form pack were issued recently , nothing to do with DVLA database records

So it demonstrates nothing at all !

4yearoldclaim

Redx said:

It's the claimant that issued them , not the defendant ! So , that they issued them !

The correct address claim form issued is probably because a trace was done prior to the court claim at LoC stage , nothing to do with whether or not the DVLA had the correct address at this moment in time. The claimant is not allowed to check the DVLA database more than once per PCN , certainly not years later

Stop making assumptions , the PCN should have been issued years ago to the DVLA database information , nothing to do with issuing a court claim years later !  Court claim action depends on ensuring that the name and address are correct when the letter of claim and the subsequent claim form pack were issued recently , nothing to do with DVLA database records

So it demonstrates nothing at all !

I want them to provide evidence that they actually sent the correct notice/documents within the legal timeframe required.

But you're saying since they cannot legally check DVLA details on a PCN more than once, this essentially proves the address was incorrect with the DVLA as I never received the letters/notices to keeper.

Will remove section.

Redx

It doesn't prove anything of the kind !

Until you have copies of the PCN s you have no proof at all and are making dangerous assumptions !

You are putting them to strict proof that the invoices were posted to the name and address obtained from the DVLA database , within their contractual obligations under the  KADOE 6 months timeframe , irrespective of whether those details were correct or not !

Your SAR reply will show you where they went and who to , until then you have no proof of anything !

Hint , this is what they do on a daily basis , so IMHO they obtained keeper details from the DVLA and posted the PCN s to the name and address they obtained , it's what they do , it's their job , what they all do , every day

If the details were incorrect , then that was your fault , your legal responsibility , nothing to do with the claimant ! , Not their problem

Don't make any assumptions at all , stick to writing your defence , not second guessing what may have happened

Which legal timeframe required ?  There is no requirement , POFA is not mandatory