GROUP NEXUS / DCB CLAIM FORM

Coupon-mad

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

That's what they want you and the Judge to think. It's not true. They have paid NADA.

It is also absurd to expect the Defendant and court to swallow the obvious lie that it costs £70 to fail to collect £50. 

kathmar

I have put together this defence. Is this acceptable? 


Defence
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

1. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment 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).  The Defendant believes 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.

3. 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

Images of Chan case 

4. The Defendant remembers the day in question as she had arrived in the Leigh Woods car park to take her dog for a walk. The Defendant noticed that the machine was out of order with no facilities to pay by apple pay. After spending time to see if there were any alternative methods to pay and seeing that there were none that were possible the defendant took a photo of the out of order sign and stayed briefly to let her dog out and then left. 

6.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3. No such document has been served. 

7.  Defendant disputes the sums claimed by the claimant as they have failed to provide a clear breakdown of how these sums were calculated, despited requesting this information. On July 1st, 2024 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. 

7i In their response dated July 9th, 2024 the claimants failed to provide the requested breakdown.  Instead, the claimant’s 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 on an additional £70 as a “contractual fee”. 
• On the 24th of 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.

7ii Despite these assertions, the Particulars of Claim (PoC) describe the additional £30 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. 

7iii 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 request 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. 

7iv 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. 

kathmar

Also worth noting in section 7 is that the letter from the solicitors said that "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." however that is not the case.  The original letter stated a fee of £50 reduced to £25.  Do I include that? 

Coupon-mad

It cannot have been £70 discounted to £50.  That doesn't add up (discount not correct %).

If it was a £120 LBC, then the PCN was £50 discounted to £25.

Remove this:

"and stayed briefly to let her dog out".

kathmar

Yes.  They say: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.  

However as you say the first charge was £50 discounted to £25 on oct.20th2023. On November 22 this was increased (back to) £50 on January 2nd this became £120.  

So the letter from the solicitor's is incorrect. 

Do I state that? 

I have updated 4 to:
4. The Defendant remembers the day in question as she had arrived in the Leigh Woods car park to take her dog for a walk. The Defendant noticed that the machine was out of order with no facilities to pay by cash or apple pay. After spending time to see if there were any alternative methods to pay and seeing that there were none that were possible the defendant took a photo of the out of order sign and then left. 

Coupon-mad

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.

But that can't be correct.  A Discount cannot be less than 40% so the solicitors replied with wrong info.

Look at the signs. 

kathmar

I'm not able to go look at signs but just regarding what letters for payment and then the letter from solicitor the amounts are different.  
First letter £25. Second. £50 Third £120.  I have them in front of me.  
Do I include that in the defence? 

kathmar

Should I add this to point 7: 

The claimant states in their response email to the defendant that "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."

However, in fact the initial charge (October 20th, 2023) was £50 reduced to £25 if paid within 14 days. This then reverted back to £50 on the 11th of November.  Which then became £120 to include "debt recovery administration costs" as stated in letter dated January 2nd, 2024.  

Again suggesting that the figures have been arbitrarily determined. 

KeithP

About a month ago I wrote on your thread...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 29th July 2024 to file your Defence.

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

Let's hope there are plenty of people around willing to answer your questions on a nice sunny weekend.

Gr1pr

Stick to the facts, regardless of the stupidity or skim reading by the lawyers involved, but do state that the evidence by the Claimant is incorrect despite their assertions to the contrary, but keep it concise for now

But leave the elaborate stories etc for your WS in several months time, where you can expand on your actual facts compared to their fictitious ramblings