GroupNexus - County Oak Retail - Court Claim stage

fivestarsamz

KeithP said:

fivestarsamz said:

KeithP said:

3. The defendant did not know about this PCN as they did not have any acknowledgment of the PCN until the county court claim letter was received. 

That doesn't read right.

It looks like you are saying "The defendant did not know about this PCN until the county court claim letter was received" which isn't true.

I don't even know what the phrase "as they did not have any acknowledgment of the PCN" means.

You must tell the truth in anything you say to the court.

Before using an initialisation, you should write the term in full the first time.
So "The defendant did not know about this PCN..." 
becomes "The defendant did not know about this Parking Charge Notice('PCN')..."

But it is true that the defendant did not know about this PCN until they received the county court claim letter. 

OK, but isn't that because you failed to read mail which was correctly addressed and delivered to you?
 I'm not sure how that excuse for your inaction is going to be received.

True... well... it is what I am assuming happened because it has happened before. We don't know for sure if they did actually send the mails or not... we are assuming they did and the RK did not open the mail.  But okay, I will eliminate that. 

How about this?

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant was NOT the Driver of the vehicle.

3. The driver was at Costa Coffee at the retail park meeting with friends. The driver was unaware that the time allowed to use the car park was limited to a ‘fixed’ time and that it was ‘overstayed’. The signs were not clear enough to make the driver informed about the time restriction. 

Is there anything else I can add?

patient_dream

And don't concern yourself about Group Nexus, they are only a two man band  operating via a bust pub .....Jack Straw's Castle, 12 North End Way, London, England, NW3 7ES

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11309569/officers

The pub closed in 2002, and was then converted to a number of luxury apartments and gymnasium. As of 2020 the building is empty.

1505grandad

Spot the very important difference:-

The defendant did not know about this Parking Charge Notice  -  per Kp

The defendant did not know about this Penalty Charge Notice  -  yours

Coupon-mad

fivestarsamz said:

KeithP said:

fivestarsamz said:

KeithP said:

3. The defendant did not know about this PCN as they did not have any acknowledgment of the PCN until the county court claim letter was received. 

That doesn't read right.

It looks like you are saying "The defendant did not know about this PCN until the county court claim letter was received" which isn't true.

I don't even know what the phrase "as they did not have any acknowledgment of the PCN" means.

You must tell the truth in anything you say to the court.

Before using an initialisation, you should write the term in full the first time.
So "The defendant did not know about this PCN..." 
becomes "The defendant did not know about this Parking Charge Notice('PCN')..."

But it is true that the defendant did not know about this PCN until they received the county court claim letter. 

OK, but isn't that because you failed to read mail which was correctly addressed and delivered to you?
 I'm not sure how that excuse for your inaction is going to be received.

True... well... it is what I am assuming happened because it has happened before. We don't know for sure if they did actually send the mails or not... we are assuming they did and the RK did not open the mail.  But okay, I will eliminate that. 

How about this?

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant was NOT the Driver of the vehicle.

3. The driver was at Costa Coffee at the retail park meeting with friends. The driver was unaware that the time allowed to use the car park was limited to a ‘fixed’ time and that it was ‘overstayed’. The signs were not clear enough to make the driver informed about the time restriction. 

Is there anything else I can add?

Yes! All the usual stuff seen in those other defences I linked, about the fact that CP Plus don't use the PoFA so the Claimant cannot hold a registered keeper liable who was not driving.

And remove "and that it was ‘overstayed’. "


(We assume you are being truthful in your defence and were not the driver?).

fivestarsamz

Time to get this defense finalised. Nothing from the SAR yet, unfortunately. 

Okay so point 2 is sorted. I won't continue posting that again and again. 

I am now working on point 3 and even possibly going to add a point to make the defense that the CP plus don't use PoFA so cannot transfer keepers' liability as @Coupon-mad mentions:

3. The driver was at Costa Coffee at the retail park meeting with friends. The driver was unaware that the time allowed to use the car park was limited to a ‘fixed’ time. The signs were not clear enough to make the driver informed about the time restriction. 
4. 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 driver visiting Costa Coffee to meet with friends would be acting as a consumer in their own right at the retail park 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.

How does it sound? Any more I can add?

Coupon-mad said:

(We assume you are being truthful in your defence and were not the driver?).

Yes, I am being truthful in my whole defense. The defendant (the RK) was indeed not the driver. 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine to me, then.

fivestarsamz

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine to me, then.

Okay great... I will wait till tomorrow afternoon anyway but do you think there is any harm or 'missed opportunity' in sending the defense to the email early? or Is it better to maybe wait till the last day? I am thinking the only reason that would be would be for the SAR. 
I know @KeithP said I have until 12th Dec 4 pm to send the email but I don't really leave it to the last minute just in case something does go wrong. So I don't really want to send it any later than 11th Dec, 4pm.

Coupon-mad

I think no need to wait.

You know what the allegation is and we know the NTK was non-POFA so there is nothing the SAR will reveal that affects your defence.

fivestarsamz

Hello guys, just thought I'd give an update on whats going on now. RK received the Notice of allocation to the small claims track. Court date is late July. So i guess now I build a defense WS using helpful guides on here. I will do research but any main pointers would be appreciated. 

RK got an email from DCB legal: 

Dear XXXX (RK),

 

Re: Our Client: Cp Plus Ltd T/a Groupnexus

Claim Number: XXXXXX 

　

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

 

We write to you in relation to the above matter.

 

To assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £180.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £268.56.

　　　

Should you be agreeable to this offer, please confirm the same within 7 days. Payment can be made via our website www.dcblegal.co.uk, by calling our office on 0203 434 0424 or via bank transfer:　

　　　

DCB Legal Ltd Client Account　　

 

Sort Code: 20-24-XX　　

Account no: XXXXX　　

　　　

When making payment please ensure you include the following reference number, XXXX.XXXXX, to enable us to allocate it to the correct case.

　　　

Upon receipt of the settlement sum of £180.00 we will update the Court that the matter has been settled. If you are not agreeable, we will continue to follow the Court process as normal.　

 

Kind Regards,  

 

XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

DCB Legal Ltd  

Got it on 11/05/2023. Obviously I will tell the RK not to accept. But is it worth responding to? Just say 

Dear DCB Legal, 

No.

Regards,

RK

Boat_to_Bolivia

Nope just ignore.

Re the WS, current exemplar WS to copy and adapt are by @aphex007 and @SJRRJS.