CCBC Claim form, Deadline and correct defence.

Redx

Dcb legal is not the claimant , it's either Highview Parking or more likely CP Plus !!

Email a SAR to the DPO at Group Nexus asap , attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of I D under the GDPR law to obtain all your data , plus copies of 2 recent redacted utility bills too

As for not getting any PCN , it's usually due to not updating your V5C , a legal requirement with a fine of up to £1000 by the DVLA !! So check your V5C is correct ( unless it's a hire or lease or company vehicle ? )

Ps , it's not an offence !! So lose that word 

Le_Kirk

Yes reword it so that the judge understands that you are stating that there were multiple authorised drivers around the time of the event and it is not now possible to know who the driver was on an unremarkable day nearly five years ago.  Then you can continue with your point about the keeper/defendant never having visited that site in that car.  Helpful if you can prove you were somewhere else that day.  All this is only good if the original PCN/NTK is not POFA compliant so that they cannot hold the keeper liable.

bloodyccbc

Thanks for your opinions,

Here is my re-worded and very truthful words in paragraphs #2 and #3.

Maybe I am trying too hard with this and overlooking the clear point to make.

Again, Comments and opinions welcomed and THANK YOU to all for taking the time to reply and helping people such as myself!!! 

 2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The issue date of the PCN was 06/03/2017 and during the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 the vehicle was in fact being used by various individuals for work purposes. Unfortunately no longer can the identification be obtained to confirm the driver on that particular day nearly five years ago. The defendant would like to clarify that at no point have they ever visited the site of MOTO Lymm Services in this particular vehicle.

3. The PCN was first heard about several months after the issue date [06/03/2017] with threatening letters in the post from the claimant and legal firm ‘DCB Legal’. This caused must distress to my wife and I during our time of starting a family as regular ‘debt recovery’ letters kept bombarding us. As time went by the bombardment slowed and it was suspected that these unprofessional debt recovery companies had in fact realised they was wrong to keep harassing. Then in January 2022 a claim form was received from the County Court Business Center in relation to this matter. I feel this exaggerated cost claim is completely unfair and I, the defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

Redx

2) is ok

3) is not a defence , apart from the last sentence , the rest is irrelevant background information , a tant , save it for your witness statement in several months time , so remove the explanation that isn't a defence point , neither is the exaggerated cost , which is already in the template later on , the double recovery charges ( already objected to , due to being in almost every court claim )

Start again with 3)

POFA is one clear point , buried at the bottom , use it and look for more in other court claim threads about c p plus , Highview Parking and Moto , anything over the last 12 months

Coupon-mad

Totally agree.

3 should state that, given the Defendant was not the driver and the Claimant has failed to comply with the Notice to Keeper (wording and deadlines) requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,  there is no applicable law under which the Defendant can be held liable.  The unknown driver can only have been visiting MOTO to rest and/or get petrol and would have been acting as a consumer in their own right at a Motorway Services location and not 'on behalf of' this Defendant.  So there is not even a tenuous 'agency' argument as sometimes tried and failed by the parking industry.  There is no cause of action at all.

bloodyccbc

@Coupon-mad,

Any objection to me copying and pasting. 

Eg. Given the Defendant was not the driver and the Claimant has failed to comply with the Notice to Keeper (wording and deadlines) requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,  there is no applicable law under which the Defendant can be held liable.  The unknown driver can only have been visiting MOTO to rest and/or get petrol and would have been acting as a consumer in their own right at a Motorway Services location and not 'on behalf of' this Defendant.

??

Coupon-mad

Yep, no worries (without the 'e.g.'!).

bloodyccbc

Great, Thank you. Far better words than mine!
Another thing of concern to me now is what @Le_Kirk said.

"All this is only good if the original PCN/NTK is not POFA compliant so that they cannot hold the keeper liable"

I have no idea where the letters are that would have come from CP PLUS t/a GROUPNEXUS or DCB LEGAL to check whether that is true or not.

Any suggestions?

Coupon-mad

No need.  CP Plus have never in ten years, ever used the POFA!

bloodyccbc

Ok, Thanks! big sigh, going to make a brew now then finish my defence - using my copy and paste technique. 

Thanks again, especially for taking the time to reply, its a Sunday evening and I picked up somewhere on one of your comments @Coupon-mad you too have a family.