GROUP NEXUS / DCB CLAIM FORM

LDast

Do you not understand that the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove their allegations, not for you to do it for them. What have they alleged in the PoC? That you breached a term on a sign at the car park? What was that term?

They have not stated what the term is even though they are required to so so. Simply stating that the vehicle remained on private property in breach of unspecified terms and conditions without specifying what those terms and conditions are is a breach of protocol and procedure. It is irrelevant what was stated in any correspondence you may or may not have received previously. The claimant has to follow the Court Procedure Rules and should, at a minimum, state the cause of action in the PoC. They haven't.

Have you even read the CEL v Chan appeal judgment? It couldn't be much clearer why it applies to your case.

kathmar

I sent an email this morning to DCB legal as suggested earlier requesting detailed breakdown of 'damages' etc. 

I have already admitted to being the driver in appeal to Group Nexus. 

Coupon-mad

As you have a claim form, this isn't a time to be sending emails to DCB Legal.  When others talked about challenging the sum of money, they meant just use the Template Defence (which does).  Not send separate emails (unless you are trying @LDast's new tactic...I'm not sure?).

You will be using the alternative defence start, linked in the third paragraph of the Template Defence itself. The one for cases where no breach is specified.

LDast

Coupon-mad said:

As you have a claim form, this isn't a time to be sending emails to DCB Legal.  When others talked about challenging the sum of money, they meant just use the Template Defence (which does).  Not send separate emails (unless you are trying @LDast's new tactic...I'm not sure?).

You will be using the alternative defence start, linked in the third paragraph of the Template Defence itself. The one for cases where no breach is specified.

My suggestion to email DCB Legal for the breakdown of the sums in the claim should not have any bearing on the fact that the case of action is not defined and so the CEL v Chan defence should still be used. It is designed to get the claimant to evidence their claimed sums and thus, hopefully, provide more ammunition against them for use in the defence or later at trial.

It is still early days to see what response defendants are receiving to the suggested CPR 18 request. I believe it is likely to highlight abuse of process in the way the sums have been calculated and presented. We all know that if the fake add-on is damages, they must explain how those damages were arrived at and how they were calculated. If they are presented as fixed debt recovery costs, why are they claiming interest on them. It has already been shown in the IA from the DLUHC that the debt recovery costs are extortionately overstated.

kathmar

Hello

Yes, the email to DCB Legal was on the recommendation from LDAST.  

If I understand correctly, the 'damages' are the expenses of instruction debt collection agencies. 

This is there response: 

Dear 'xx' 

 

We write in response to your recent correspondence received on 1st July 2024.  

 

For the purpose of clarity, DCB Legal have been instructed by our Client, CP Plus Limited t/a Groupnexus, to pursue you for an unpaid Parking Charge Notice issued on 8th October 2023 at Leigh Woods.  

 

When the terms were breached, you were afforded the opportunity to pay the reduced sum of £50.00, as our Client received no such payment, the parking charge of £70.00 has been issued as per the Contract. An additional charge of £70.00 has been added to the sum as per the contractual costs outlined on the signs, as the Claimant has had to go to the expense of instructing debt collection agencies to recover the debt.  

 

When you failed to make payment of the outstanding balance £120.00 outlined within the Letter of Claim issued on 24th May 2024, a Claim was issued against you on 26th June 2024, and interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s. 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 has been claimed, the sum of which being £6.99. A sum of £35.00 has been claimed for the costs of issuing a Claim and a further £50.00 has been claimed for fixed costs pursuant to CPR 45.  

 

You are now required to address the Court documentation or make payment of the outstanding Claim balance of £211.99, within the time frame stipulated by the Court. Failure to do so will result in Judgment being issued against you in default, you will also be liable for additional fees and costs that will be incurred.  

 

Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account:- 

Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account  

Sort Code: 20-24-09  

Account Number: 60964441  

Gr1pr

So follow the advice by Coupon mad and others earlier in the thread 

If you want to report them to the IR, do that's separately, but dealing with the claim is more important right now 

kathmar

Thank you. 

LDAST suggested that with the letter the response might highlight 'ammunition that can be used against them'.  So really I was uploading this to see if that was the case or if I simply move ahead to filing the defence. 

LDast

So, they have not responded to the request for further information, which as a reminder was this:

1. A detailed breakdown of the sum claimed. What element is the principal and what element is "damages".
2. Detailed information regarding the "damages" mentioned in the claim form, including a breakdown of what these damages consist of, the basis on which they were calculated and any supporting documentation.
3. A detailed breakdown and explanation of the calculation of the interest claimed, including the start date and end date for the interest period, the rate applied, and the method of calculation.

The claimant has obfuscated in their response to the defendants request and not answered the questions regarding how each element of the claim has been calculated. Not only have they failed to follow the PAP, they are in breach of the IDs and CPRs. They are demonstrably abusing the process and the claim should be struck out on that basis alone.

There also appears to be a discrepancy with the numbers provided in that woefully inadequate response in that they say the initial charge was £70 discounted to £50 and then went back up to £70. They then say that after the part due date another £70 damages was added. Even with the most rudimentary maths skills, that comes to £140. They then state in that response that the LoC was for £120. They are not simply being mendacious, they are outright lying.

Gr1pr

As above, the original NTK PCN letter was for £50 , discounted by 50% to £25 for early payment, but due to non payment the full £50 was due.  The spurious £70 debt collector fee was added on to make £50 + £70 = £120 in total 

So the outstanding amount is £50 plus the court and legal fees, if a judge agreed with the Claimant 

The defence submission is the important task at this time 

LDast

I would suggest something along these lines be added to the Preliminary Matter of the defence:

Preliminary matter: The Claim should be struck out

1. The defendant disputes the sums claimed by the claimant as they have failed to provide a clear breakdown of how these sums were calculated, despite repeated requests for this information. On [date], the defendant requested further information from the claimant through their solicitor, specifically asking for a detailed breakdown of the sums claimed and the interest calculations.

2. In their response dated [date], the claimants failed to provide the requested breakdown. Instead, the claimants solicitor embarrassingly provided only the following information:

   - The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was for £70, discounted to £50 if paid within 14 days.

   - After 14 days, the charge reverted to £70.

   - After 28 days, the claimant added an additional £70 as a "contractual fee."
   - On the 24th May 2024, Letter of Claim (LoC) for £120 [?] was issued.
   - On 26th June 2024, a Claim was issued and interest at 8% per annum was added, the sum of which was £6.99
   

3. Despite these assertions, the Particulars of Claim (PoC) describe the additional £70 as "damages," which is inconsistent with the claimant's previous description.  Furthermore, the claimant erroneously states that the defendant failed to make payment of £120 within 30 days of the Letter of Claim (LoC) being issued. The claimant has not explained how the figure of £120 was calculated, adding further confusion and suggesting that the figures have been arbitrarily determined.

4. The defendant submits that the claimant's failure to provide a clear and consistent breakdown of the sums claimed prejudices the defendant’s ability to properly defend against the claim. Without a clear understanding of how the sums were calculated, the defendant cannot accurately respond to or challenge the claim. The defendant contends that this lack of transparency and the inconsistencies in the claimant’s statements constitute an abuse of process. The  defendant requests that the court considers striking out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c) on the grounds that the claimant’s statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and is an abuse of the court's process.

5. Alternatively, the defendant respectfully requests that the court orders the claimant to provide a detailed breakdown and clear explanation of the sums claimed and the reference dates used in the interest calculations. The defendant reserves the right to amend this Defence upon receipt of the requested information.