Group Nexus DCB Legal court claim, at WS stage

Le_Kirk

Blackysowner said:

1. Im not sure how to find "a link to @Le_Kirk's latest - long - 'judgments' link", but I tried my best to find the cases that were used in many other WS on the forum. Would this be OK?

It is the same for anybody's name, just click on it and you got to their profile, then you can look at their threads and comments.  In my case it is threads and the one cunningly named Judgments Link. 

Blackysowner

The judgements link, you mean this one right?
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2jef4c7bljyp6dse24p70/Judgments.pdf?rlkey=jsgusx180wzjz2f6er0436xw2&e=1&st=03x4tsbq&dl=0

So when you say

"All of these should be replaced by the single judgments link:

Exhibit 01 - Civil Enforcement v Ming Tak Chan Judgment 11 

Exhibit 02 - Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande

Exhibit 03 - Parallel Parking v Anon

Exhibit 04 - Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 1

Exhibit 05 - Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 2"


Do you mean I should just remove all of those Exhibits, and just put one exhibit like this:


Exhibit 01 - Link to CEL v Chan and similar case 'strike out' Judgments from all over the English courts:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2jef4c7bljyp6dse24p70/Judgments.pdf?rlkey=jsgusx180wzjz2f6er0436xw2&e=1&st=03x4tsbq&dl=0


And I can just use Exhibit 01 for all paragraphs that mentioned a different case, and dont even need to attach any of the images of those cases?



And then I should also add a paragraph under all those paragraphs that I put above, like this:

The first two transcripts are both persuasive appeal judgments, and then the other judgments and strike out Orders demonstrate the path taken by many District Judges in the English Courts since 2023, fully aligning with the findings by His Honour Judge Murch (Luton) and Her Honour Judge Evans (Manchester). (See Exhibit 01)

Is this correct?

Coupon-mad

Yes except don't just mention Chan.  Mention Akande too as they are both persuasive appeal judgments.  Then the rest in Exhibit 01 are strike outs from all over the English courts.

Blackysowner

All done, posting the whole final version of my WS here so that others might have a look at it for ideas when they are writing theirs. Please kindly have another quick look too if you dont mind.

Page numbers are added properly in the word file already btw, just that I cannot copy it properly here.

Blackysowner

Claim number xxxxxxxx (Defendant, xxxxxxxxx)
Hearing Date: 23rd April 2025

In the County Court at Lincoln County Court

Table of Contents:

Witness Statement of Defendant 2

Exhibit 01 - Link to Civil Enforcement Limited v Ming Tak Chan, Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande and similar case 'strike out' Judgments from all over the English courts 13

Exhibit 02 -  Carpark Signage Google street view Nov 2020 13

Exhibit 03 - Recent Carpark Signage Feb 2025 15

Exhibit 04 - Excel v Wilkinson Case Transcript  19

Exhibit 05 - The Beavis case sign for comparison  29

Exhibit 05 - The Beavis case sign for comparison 30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CP PLUS LTD T/A GROUPNEXUS (Claimant)

V

xxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

 

Witness Statement of Defendant

 

1.      I am xxxxxxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

 

2.      In my statement, I shall refer to (Exhibits 01-06) within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.      I draw to the attention of the court that there are now two persuasive Appeal judgments to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

 

4.      A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16.  On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. (See Exhibit 01)

 

5.      A further recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd V Charles Akande Judgment (Ref. K0DP5JT30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16.  On the 10th of May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans dismissed the appeal and found in favour of Akande. The same is true in this case and in view of the Akande judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. (See Exhibit 01)

 

6.      Both Chan and Akande transcripts are persuasive appeal judgments, alongside other judgments and strike out Orders these demonstrate the path taken by many District Judges in the English Courts since 2023, fully aligning with the findings by His Honour Judge Murch (Luton) and Her Honour Judge Evans (Manchester).

 

7.      Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit 01).

 

8.      Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit 01)

9.      Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final Exhibit below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit 01)

 

10. I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the Defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

 

Facts and Sequence of events

11. It is admitted that I was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX on the date of the claimed PCN.

 

12. I recognise the site as a car park for a retail park which I went to occasionally, and I have been a genuine customer there.

 

13. On the day in question, I went into several shops at Valentine Retail Park LN6 7BH as a genuine customer. I later left the Retail Park by car after shopping.

 

14. I would like to make it clear that I do not recall receiving any pre-claim correspondence relating to the PCN in question. I have never received any letters regarding the parking charge until I finally received the DCBL Debt recovery letter back in Late Nov 2023.

 

15. The reason for the PCN I received was because of "Vehicle Remained On Private Property in Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions", in which did not explain what exactly was the reason why I was being charged. I was never given a proper chance to respond or appeal but additional charge was then already applied. I have tried contacting both DCBL and Cp Plus Ltd T/a Groupnexus regarding this issue, but both of them failed to tell me the exact reason why I was charged. They failed to tell me which displayed terms and conditions I have breached exactly.

 

16. I have not received the Claimant’s Witness Statement as of 7th Feb 2025. Making it impossible for me to respond to it here.

 

17. It seems like the car park has new Signages now, however, the view on google street view in Nov 2020 shows an old Signage at the car park that was hard to read due to being placed well above head height and due to the use of small text. (See Exhibits 02)

 

18. The car park’s current Signages are still hard to read due to being placed well above head height and due to the use of small text. (See Exhibits 03)

 

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently addressed by the Government

 

19. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

 

20. I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:
(i) the alleged breach, and
(ii)  a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced quantum claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

 

21. This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

 

22.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7thFebruary 2022, here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice
"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

 

23. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

 

24. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

 

25.  With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and I take that position.

 

26. The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

 

27. In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

 

 

28. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2023 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

 

29. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).

 

30. I would like to aver that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they meet the signage requirements in the DLUHC Code which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

Blackysowner

CRA Breaches

31. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA which introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

 

32.  Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well-placed (and lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

 

33. The CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).

 

34. Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that template 'debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson. (See Exhibit 04)

 

The Beavis case is against this claim

35. The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, in particular, the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - (See Exhibit 05) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

 

36. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. (See Exhibit 06) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

 

 

Conclusion

 

37. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of me, the Defendant.

 

38. I ask the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge Murch (August 2023) in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC.  It is worth noting that in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the defendant's parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violation.  In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

 

39. There is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case.

 

40.  With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims.  For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. I believe that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

 

41.  In the matter of costs, I ask:
(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

 

42. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

 

 

Statement of truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Defendant’s signature:    (my signature)

 

Date: 7 February 2025

(Then following with the Exhibits links, images at the end)

Blackysowner

And one final question: After I convert it into a PDF file, which email address shall I send it to?

Is it

info@dcblegal.co.uk   for DCBlegal

and 

enquiries.lincoln.countycourt@justice.gov.uk

for the court?

Or should I use the hearing one? Which is

hearings.lincoln.countycourt@justice.gov.uk


(its a bit absurd that the court letter does not include this info)

Le_Kirk

I would use the "hearings" one and I believe that info@dcblegal.co.uk is the one that most posters use.  I see you have referred to Chan and Akande at the beginning of your witness statement and then you refer separately to CEL v Chan again towards the end.  Is that deliberate?

Blackysowner

Oh you know what, doesnt matter anymore, Ive received the discontinue email from them. (damn it, went to junk mail, couldve saved my last few hours of editing the WS)

Thank you very very very much for all your help here, really appreciated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another case to add to the victorious post!!!!!!!!!!!!

May I ask if it is still necessary to send the WS to the court and DCBlegal just in case? I guess not?

Gr1pr

Please post a redacted picture of the N279 Notice of Discontinuance from DCB Legal below 

Then @Umkomaas can add your case to his discontinuations thread 

Well done & Thanks