Claim Form - DCB Legal / CP Plus Ltd T/A Groupnexus

tomscfc

Hi all,

I've tried to do a lot of reading before posting so I hope I've included everything and made this as easy as possible for you, thanks in advance for your help. I must preface this by saying I have had an accident since the alleged offence (from Sept '21) and my memory is very hit and miss so I may not be able to recall exact details from the date in question.

Quick background – I parked in a retail park car park (no ticket needed, just cameras and signs dotted about) and allegedly overstayed the time. There are many shops there which I would have definitely used at least one of them although I did also park there from time to time when going to watch the football right next to it (the time to stay is reduced on matchday although I still used the supermarket if I did this from 3 hours to 1.5 hours). Unfortunately when I visited the forum when I got initial letters I was still adhering to guidelines I used years ago and ignored letters but now can see things were updated.

I now have a claim form with an issue date of 8th Nov 2022.

The claimant is CP PLUS LTD T/A GROUPNEXUS

And the address for sending documents/payments is for DCB LEGAL LTD

I believe my next steps/the process is as follows, with a rough timeline :

• Acknowledge service of claim after day 5 (13th Nov) so any time now, will do this tonight.
• I then have 30 days to submit my defence ( ~ 14th Dec deadline)
• Towards the 14th Dec date, submit defence to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk during working days and hours and copy in the legal team of the parking firm. Ensure acknowledgement is received.
• Complete Directions Questionnaire from the CCBC and email same way as previously
• Send a copy of DQ to claimant/solicitor – email is sufficient and is easily proved
• Await hearing date/claim being struck out/PPC discontinuance

Before drafting my initial defence, I'm assuming a defence of overstaying because I was a frequent visitor and often stayed for varying lengths of time similar and beyond that in this case without ever receiving an indication of an offence is futile? As I only have that and the limited and unclear signage. Sadly my health has prevented me visiting the area for a long period of time so I am unsure of the exact signs etc.

Please could someone please advise the best route of defence I should take so I can get on with drafting it as I can't really see a viable defence if the GPEOL if no longer valid. Or if there is a post I've missed with various defences used in cases like this please direct me there - sorry if I missed it.

Thanks for any advice you can give. Going to court to sort this out really makes me really anxious so I'm just after reassurance/further advice but I have read over the full template a few times and multiple posts and believe I'm getting a good understanding of the process as to how the case would be won so it doesn't just seem like a copy and paste job with me not knowing what I'm arguing.

Thanks 

Grizebeck

If this was me i would double down on no keeper liability in the defence and that should see them discontinue, but it has to be front and centre of your defence.

KeithP

tomscfc said:

I now have a claim form with an issue date of 8th Nov 2022.

I can see you already have a good idea of the process but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, you have until Monday 28th November to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 12th December 2022 to file your Defence. 
Please note that your Defence filing deadline is a couple of days earlier than you estimated.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Le_Kirk

It isn't necessary to send a copy of the defence to the claimant and/or their solicitors as this is done by the CCBC.  We did advise it some months ago as the CCBC was backlogged.  One poster this week even mentioned that their defence had been rejected and destroyed by the legal!

tomscfc

Thank you both for your replies, I meant to acknowledge them sooner but I it slipped my mind having been trying to get my head
around how to best defend this and what to go with.

Please don't think I am asking for someone to write a defence for me, I am just struggling to find a similar situation. 

Points I have are:

I have parked and used the retail park numerous times for just as long and plenty of times even longer than on this occasion without any indication of wrong doing.
There is limited signage around the car park and not clear and obvious and I only know about it from receiving one of these letters that I then went to read a sign next time I was there (but again was following outdated advice to just bin at the time).
I don't see how there can be an enforceable time difference on a matchday to a non matchday (I see why they've done it) but I'm not paying anything to stay in the car park and a visit the area on a matchday to spend time in the retail park you would easily clear the time limit without attending the match - which is disadvantaging those not going to the football as it's not like they can just pay more on that day. 
I've never seen the car park more than 75% full either - although I believe the genuine pre estimate of losses is no longer a defence, but that just shows what a farce this whole thing is because they haven't lost anything in someone parking there 1 hour 45 mins when a football game happens to be on compared to the same length of time the following day.
I don't have any of the letters sent, due to the time passed so can't be sure if they are legally compliant.

I'm sorry in advance as I know a lot of this comes across as very emotional but even since this letter came I've had some deeply upsetting family news and the stress levels recently have had me off work so this is just another thing I can do without. 

I think all of the above points are irrelevant in defence and every time I've tried to write a defence it's veering away from factual and more emotional about the situation. If none of the above points is worthy of basing a defence on I am going to agree a payment plan with them as this is taking it's toll now. I'm not looking for sympathy etc just trying to see if there is something here to build on or not, so please don't spend any time on it, just a simple yes or no to anything I've said so I can start to flesh it out.

Thanks again.

tomscfc

Hi again, 

I am going to leave my previous post up as I want to start by apologising for how I came across on here, and have it serve as a reminder for myself - at the moment situations are quite easily escalated in my head and whether anyone even read it or not, I am glad no one spent time replying.

I have since rested and calmed myself down and tried to adapt a defence I found on here that I would be grateful if anyone can read over and give me some pointers. I understand I'll need to be clued up on the main argument to be able to articulate it if it comes to court.

----

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 £236.40 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research, the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXX on the 25th September 2021 at XXXX shopping park.

3a)       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. There were multiple possible drivers on this otherwise unremarkable date from over a year ago meaning the Defendant cannot recall who the driver was on the day in question. The difficulty to recall the driver is compounded further in that the shopping park was frequently used when the Defendant, or any of the other potential drivers, visited the local area and would meet long distance family and spend days at various locations around the city.

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 £151.40. 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 £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point. 

--------------

How does this sound?

tomscfc

And to follow this up one more time tonight, there is a slight difference in wording in the particulars of claim that I'm unsure of, it states - 

"D is liable as the driver of the vehicle and agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages."

Is this standard wording? As the Defendant wouldn't have confirmed they were the driver and then not paid the cheaper amount knowing it would just lead to a bigger charge. From the template I've amended it sounds like it should read D is liable as the registered keeper or something? 

Umkomaas

I thought I'd draw your attention to this fairly recent thread which you might have missed. You must keep going through all the necessary court procedure phases, but the hope is that your case will follow the same pattern as all those detailed in the thread. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

Le_Kirk

tomscfc said:

And to follow this up one more time tonight, there is a slight difference in wording in the particulars of claim that I'm unsure of, it states - 

"D is liable as the driver of the vehicle and agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages."

Is this standard wording? As the Defendant wouldn't have confirmed they were the driver and then not paid the cheaper amount knowing it would just lead to a bigger charge. From the template I've amended it sounds like it should read D is liable as the registered keeper or something? 

The PPC/claimant's point is that by staying there in the parking area, you agreed to be bound by the terms om the signage and, yes, it is standard wording.

Coupon-mad

Except that it doesn't say 'or keeper' on this one.

Looks like DCB Legal may have adjusted their POC for Group Nexus. We will have to remember that in Highview and CP Plus cases, and advise people to:

(a). admit,
(b). deny, or
(c). truthfully say that they cannot admit nor deny being the driver because they have seen no evidence, the event was years ago and more than one family member was insured on the vehicle.

KeithP

Did you file a Defence before 4pm on Monday 12th December 2022?

What happened next?