COURT CLAIM FORM - help with my defence

mperky

Apologies KeithP, I must have missed your comment about emailing my defense. 

mperky

I have emailed both Paul Comer and Ken McMeikan of MOTO to request that they discard my case. It appears this has worked in other similar cases. I will let you know if I get a response.  

mperky

I have also adapted another defense found on this forum relating to a similar case. Grateful for any further advice you can provide.

Please see below:

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 £277.92 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research, the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to two PCNs that were issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXX on the 16th March 2021 at MOTO Reading West.

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 these otherwise unremarkable dates, that relate to nearly six and five years ago respectively. The Defendant cannot recall who the driver was.

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 £192.92. 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. 

mperky

Received the below from MOTO. Doesn't sound that promising. Wondering if there is any point in me even responding given they will just redirect my complaint to CP PLUS!

Dear Mr

 

I have been asked to look at your case by Helena, in relation to a PCN that you received, following a visit to Moto Reading West on 16th March 2021.

GroupNexus / CP Plus manage the parking on all our Motorway Service Areas and help us to ensure that there is always sufficient parking provision, and for this reason Under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), we do not hold any information on the drivers, visits or vehicles that park on any of our services. Therefore we cannot be involved in the appeals process as we do not have the relevant details to be able to do so.

However, with your permission, I can send your correspondence to GroupNexus, who will be able to look into this matter and answer your concerns and respond to you accordingly. Please confirm if you would like me to arrange this.

 

Kind Regards,

Nadia

 

Parking Queries

Moto Hospitality Ltd

 

Parking.Queries@moto-way.co.uk

moto-way.com

Coupon-mad

Reply and say:

NO, this is utterly useless for consumers.
The complaint needs escalating within MOTO immediately.  In this and from reports of similar cases, MOTO have moved from a position where in 2021 they were shocked by the tactics of Group Nexus, and Paul Comer was cancelling all PCNs which threatened court claims, to letting the tail wag the dog.

This is NOT parking management - remote ANPR is only a PCN-machine, no more and no less.  By all accounts, CP Plus don't even bother to have a human being on site to police disabled bays, let alone place sufficient prominent and lit signage.

ANPR does NOTHING to "ensure that there is always sufficient parking provision".  MOTO's own in-house signs could achieve a 2 hour max stay if they made them huge and yellow/black. 
MOTO need to wake up.

mperky

Thanks. I sent your suggested response and received the below. 

Paul Comer is no longer with Moto and as per my previous email, our parking is managed by Group Nexus / CP Plus. We do not have access to the parking details and PCN appeals need to go via the parking company.

 

I could arrange for them to contact you directly to discuss your case, however I would need your permission for that. Without your consent I am unable to assist you further with this matter.

 

Kind Regards,

Nadia

I plan on submitting my defence by email on Saturday. 

Do you think its worth responding to MOTO and giving permission for them to forward my request to CP Plus??

Umkomaas

I'd just simply wait for the eventual DCB Legal discontinuation, then ram a copy of that right up Nadia's nostrils, with a suitable 'wake up, smell the coffee, look what your agents are inflicting on your customers' covering letter. 

Coupon-mad

Yes if you like but also ask Nadia to escalate your complaint to the Senior Management Team or whoever replaced Mr Comer, because so far MOTO are letting the tail wag the dog. 

mperky

As expected, another outstandingly unhelpful response from CP PLUS after MOTO passed on my complaint. 

Dear Sir/Madam,
 
Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge which has been passed to us by MOTO.

We advise that you will need to contact our Collection Agent directly via the below:

Telephone: 01606 611955 / 0203 4340433
Website: https://dcblegal.co.uk/contact-us/defendant-response/
Post: DCB Legal Ltd, Direct House, Greenwood Drive, Manor Park, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 1UG

We are sorry we cannot enter into further correspondence in relation to this matter.
 
Yours faithfully,

CP Plus Ltd

mperky

I have completed my defense, please do let me know if you think I should change anything. I plan to email it on Monday the 5th Dec. 

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 £277.92 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research, the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to two PCNs that were issued against the Defendant’s vehicle (CAR REGISTRATION) on the 16th March 2021 at MOTO Reading West.

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 in 2021. The Defendant cannot recall who the driver was.

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 £192.92. 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.

3e) Furthermore, the defendant did not see or acknowledge any of the parking charge signs at Moto Reading West service station on date of accused charge. Upon returning to the service station at a future date to investigate signage, there were only a few signs present, which were found be unclear with text to small to read properly. In addition, signage was inadequately positioned for defendant to legally accept CP PLUS offer, warranting a contract to be born under UK contract law.